ライフサイエンスコーパス: punishment

1 havior motivated by reward or sensitivity to punishment).

2 sts and controls did not differ, did predict punishment.

3 rsuit of rewards and inaction in the face of punishment.

4 he tasks, primarily reflecting the impact of punishment.

5 om reward but were less likely to learn from punishment.

6 the reward condition, but promoted it under punishment.

7 ed dopamine neurons' responses to reward and punishment.

8 rs, even while engaging in relatively little punishment.

9 unish inequity is commonly termed altruistic punishment.

10 ed inference on the alternative option after punishment.

11 conflated in previous studies of third-party punishment.

12 operation against free riders is third-party punishment.

13 rd accompanied by varying risks of footshock punishment.

14 of pathogen-laced food or a predator predict punishment.

15 strongest individual incurs a net loss from punishment.

16 ion of punishment, and unexpected reward and punishment.

17 can overcome the detrimental effects of peer-punishment.

18 psychopathy seems particularly resistant to punishment.

19 ansition from peer-punishment to centralized punishment.

20 FC in decision-making under risk of explicit punishment.

21 between teaching by evaluative feedback and punishment.

22 s or situation is associated with reward and punishment.

23 cterised by diminished neural sensitivity to punishment.

24 enous emergence of more centralized forms of punishment.

25 FC in decision-making under risk of explicit punishment.

26 cing properties of cues predicting reward or punishment.

27 ity, they prefer a society with second-order punishment.

28 arding and preventing behaviors that lead to punishment.

29 ards stimuli promising reward or threatening punishment.

30 d clear evidence of both direct and indirect punishment.

31 fter unexpected reward than after unexpected punishment.

32 hildren are rarely willing to execute costly punishment.

33 s encode the relationship between action and punishment.

34 ood reward with the probability of footshock punishment.

35 panied by varying probabilities of footshock punishment.

36 lict with the urge to perform fast to escape punishment.

37 frontal cortex was elevated in AN following punishment.

38 ame with antisocial behavior and retaliatory punishment.

39 al behaviors and support for severe criminal punishment.

40 press reward seeking when faced with risk of punishment.

41 by rewards are often associated with risk of punishment.

42 options and the actual received rewards and punishments.

43 s who performed a task involving rewards and punishments.

44 ld depend on the availability of rewards and punishments.

45 ertainty predictions about either rewards or punishments.

46 to alter behavioral responses to rewards and punishments.

47 n increased learning rate specifically after punishments.

48 describe how subjects learn from rewards and punishments?

49 g responses resulted unpredictably either in punishment (0.45 mA foot-shock) or the opportunity to ma

50 s learned symmetrically from both reward and punishment, adolescents learned from reward but were les

51 ociated with reward (mealworms) and one with punishment (air puff).

52 alternative forms of justice restoration to punishment alone.

53 (2) Costly Punishment, alone, disfavors defection but decreases ave

54 harm information and in selecting a suitable punishment amount.

55 Actions can lead to an immediate reward or punishment and a complex set of delayed outcomes.

56 ently, little attention has been paid to how punishment and a sense of justice develop in children.

57 punishment is only stable with second-order punishment and can only evolve when individuals have the

58 nce yet it enhances the relationship between punishment and cue avoidance.

59 consistent with a Pavlovian linkage between punishment and inaction.

60 punishment in the UG is better termed costly punishment and may be motivated by social, but not neces

61 cies through enforcement mechanisms, such as punishment and partner choice.

62 violations of the same norms in third-party punishment and recompensation games with respect to pros

63 t believing in free will predicts prescribed punishment and reward behavior, and that this relation i

64 reward, the PE group showed similar FRNs to punishment and reward, with a numerically larger FRN to

65 highlight the opposed effects of rewards and punishments and provide further evidence for their roles

66 Here, in a task where valence (reward or punishment) and action (go or no-go) were orthogonalised

67 outcomes differed in valence (reward versus punishment) and feedback was either partial or complete

68 ules responsible for learning from reward or punishment, and learning from counterfactual feedback.

69 kinship, reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, punishment, and morality.

70 , reward-based decision making, avoidance of punishment, and responses to stress.

71 eapon technology, altruistic cooperation and punishment, and the mastery of complex collaboration pro

72 s thought to control a wide range of reward, punishment, and uncertainty-related behaviors.

73 inty, expected reward value, anticipation of punishment, and unexpected reward and punishment.

74 Reductions in punishment- and relief-memory strength are also observed

75 blocks; (2) most were phasically excited by punishments; and (3) a subset was phasically excited by

76 connectivity, D c , when there is no costly punishment applied, increases average payoff.

77 e higher cooperation levels with third-party punishment are driven by two components.

78 Sensory cues that predict reward or punishment are fundamental drivers of animal behavior.

79 ing blameworthiness and assigning a deserved punishment are two cognitive cornerstones of norm enforc

80 ent, there is an incentive to slow down when punishments are forthcoming so as to decrease the rate o

81 ferent legal consequences, including greater punishments, are mandated for those who act in a state o

82 The nature of the punishment associated with the CS- also affects learning

83 ific perpetrator and whether it has a viable punishment at its disposal.

84 overall negative expected value, successful punishment avoidance acquires a positive value, thus rei

85 Compared with reward seeking, punishment avoidance learning is less clearly understood

86 trolateral prefrontal cortex inactivation on punishment avoidance were seen immediately, those of orb

87 ignificantly less is known about its role in punishment avoidance.

88 m is automatic and insensitive to reward- or punishment-based feedback.

89 ink a neural response evoked by a reward and punishment-based learning task specifically with elevate

90 uring a striatal dopamine-related reward and punishment-based learning task, such as a reversal learn

91 -carbohydrate/protein ratio increased social punishment behavior in response to norm violations compa

92 rast to prior literature, neither reward nor punishment benefitted memory retention, arguing against

93 over the course of minutes during reward vs punishment blocks; (2) most were phasically excited by p

94 of gustatory inputs not only as rewards and punishments but also as adaptive cues.

95 result of being selected against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressi

96 h abnormal decision-making involving risk of punishment, but the neural basis of this association rem

97 observed non-negligible levels of antisocial punishment by competitive, spiteful individuals, which c

98 nal prediction information about rewards and punishments by displaying excitation to both (rather tha

99 echanisms, such as short-term harassment and punishment, by showing that aggression and matings are t

100 for the first time, evidence that reward and punishment can enhance motor adaptation in patients with

101 that associating a stimulus with a reward or punishment can modulate neural activity in the auditory

102 retical model; while instantaneous threat of punishment caused subjects to increase the vigor of thei

103 iors are largely shaped by reinforcement and punishment, choices in social settings are also influenc

104 lammation acutely biased behavior, enhancing punishment compared with reward sensitivity, through dis

105 Patients' performance in the punishment condition was consistent with a reduced tende

106 s a foundation for predicting the reward and punishment contingencies that will help groups function

107 erences, monetary incentives, and individual punishment costs on the punishment of defectors.

108 Here we show that the origins of centralized punishment could lie in individuals' distinct ability to

109 vlovian and instrumental effects: reward and punishment cues promoted generalized (in)action in a Pav

110 mponents are evaluated and integrated into a punishment decision are poorly understood.

111 Behaviorally, the punishment decision is primarily defined by a superaddit

112 Finally, we show that DLPFC rTMS affects punishment decision making by altering the integration o

113 ance measures and novel post-reward and post-punishment decision-making strategies.

114 with lateral prefrontal regions involved in punishment decision-making.

115 integrate those two components into a single punishment decision.

116 ese findings deepen our understanding of how punishment decisions are made, which may someday help to

117 bution of this region to blameworthiness and punishment decisions remains poorly understood.

118 he caused are the two primary predictors of punishment decisions, the precise cognitive and brain me

119 anisms by which neutral third parties render punishment decisions.

120 he distinct information streams used to make punishment decisions.

121 that during reward-seeking actions, risk of punishment diminishes VTA-driven neural synchrony betwee

122 emma games were designed to study how costly punishment, diversity, and density of connectivity inter

123 intermediate and high mutation rates, adding punishment does not promote cooperation in either compul

124 amics where mutants are rare, and found that punishment does not promote the evolution of cooperation

125 When a single odor predicted both reward and punishment, dopamine neurons' responses to that odor ref

126 ing can be beneficial even in the absence of punishment, due to a different mechanism: preferential i

127 , vigilance) or specific to either reward or punishment (e.g., approach and avoidance).

128 tates that are either enhanced by reward and punishment (e.g., vigilance) or specific to either rewar

129 Punishment, either alone or combined with social image b

130 rtainty-related disorders of mood.Rewards or punishments elicit diverse behavioral responses; however

131 eking, maintained in the face of the risk of punishment, emerged in only a subset of rats with a pred

132 (1) Introducing diversity to costly punishment favors both cooperation and defection, but no

133 showed in young individuals that reward and punishment feedback have dissociable effects on motor ad

134 To determine the appropriate punishment for a harmful action, people must often make

135 Determining the appropriate punishment for a norm violation requires consideration o

136 s raise questions about the effectiveness of punishment for promoting cooperation when mutations are

137 DLPFC rTMS reduced punishment for wrongful acts without affecting blamewort

138 nal spike activity in the two regions during punishment-free actions.

139 Respondents viewing difficulties in life as punishment from God had a decreased odds of believing de

140 Remarkably, the reward and punishment groups adapted to similar degree as healthy c

141 All patients adapted, with reward and punishment groups displaying greater adaptation and read

142 strate for decision making involving risk of punishment; however, it is unclear how the BLA is recrui

143 We tested the altruistic punishment hypothesis in a sample of extraordinarily alt

144 ations, whereas others are inclined to avoid punishments (i.e., enhanced approach or avoidance learni

145 Collectively, these results suggest that punishment impacts skilled behavior more than reward in

146 on of unfair offers is regarded as a form of punishment implemented by fair-minded individuals, who a

147 ole of vSub in context-induced relapse after punishment-imposed abstinence and further suggest a role

148 le of LH in renewal of alcohol seeking after punishment-imposed abstinence and suggest a role of accu

149 ext-induced renewal of alcohol seeking after punishment-imposed abstinence are unknown.

150 s accumbens in context-induced relapse after punishment-imposed abstinence.

151 ntal cortex in context-induced relapse after punishment-imposed abstinence.

152 While punishment improved serial reaction time task performanc

153 issociable effects on motor adaptation, with punishment improving adaptation and reward enhancing ret

154 takes, which are often associated with harsh punishment in abusive settings.

155 We tested the influence of punishment in an experiment involving economic incentive

156 feedback learning is selectively altered for punishment in AN.

157 study investigated the effect of reward and punishment in both a sequencing skill and a motor skill

158 The existence of direct and indirect punishment in daily life indicates the importance of bot

159 NAC increased the sensitivity to punishment in LgA rats only, thereby promoting abstinenc

160 thus emerges as a more decisive factor than punishment in promoting human cooperation.

161 ted birds showed an increased expectation of punishment in the face of ambiguous information.

162 memory to associate an odor with coincident punishment in the mushroom body (MB).

163 However, clear connections between punishment in the UG and altruistic behaviours outside t

164 findings support suggestions that altruistic punishment in the UG is better termed costly punishment

165 en a community with and without second-order punishment in two different ways.

166 ed direct protest by the target, third-party punishment in which dominant individuals intervened agai

167 but not females persistently exchanged mild punishments in return for songs.

168 re forthcoming so as to decrease the rate of punishments, in conflict with the urge to perform fast t

169 We also found that although costly punishment increased between ages 6 and 8, bias in punis

170 Furthermore, whereas peer punishment increased out-group aggression more than in-g

171 onse times would slow as the overall rate of punishment increased.

172 ess to punish defectors: In models of direct punishment, individuals punish antisocial behavior at a

173 ggression seeking after forced abstinence or punishment-induced suppression of aggression self-admini

174 n seeking, progressive ratio responding, and punishment-induced suppression of aggression self-admini

175 gressive ratio responding, and resilience to punishment-induced suppression of aggressive behavior.

176 g chained reinforcement schedules, or during punishment-induced suppression of cocaine-reinforced res

177 methamphetamine and food craving occur after punishment-induced suppression of methamphetamine or pal

178 king guided by the weighing up of reward and punishment information.

179 eats is often sufficient to establish stable punishment institutions and to maintain high levels of c

180 It has been argued that centralized punishment institutions can overcome the detrimental eff

181 in turn can be crucial for the evolution of punishment institutions: In the absence of such signals,

182 e have particular promise for cases in which punishment is absent or insufficient to deter free ridin

183 The evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and ma

184 Because punishment is costly, this gives rise to the second-orde

185 Peer-punishment is effective in promoting cooperation, but th

186 nd tax evaders alike, such that second-order punishment is fully established.

187 d against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressive behavior.

188 Direct punishment is not rewarded by strangers and, in line wit

189 utions: In the absence of such signals, pool punishment is only stable with second-order punishment a

190 hment mechanisms with pool punishment, where punishment is outsourced to central institutions such as

191 to help, they are less likely to punish, and punishment is perceived as, and actually is, a weaker si

192 voluntary public goods games if anti-social punishment is possible.

193 lution of cooperation when this 'anti-social punishment' is allowed.

194 ived as morally righteous, including capital punishment, killing in war, and drone strikes that kill

195 also limits the need to mobilize an opponent punishment learning system.

196 tion module (enabling symmetrical reward and punishment learning).

197 ward (win pound1) and avoid high probability punishment (lose pound1) stimuli.

198 y with stimuli that bring neither reward nor punishment, manifested through behavioral habituation, e

199 nted, and sometimes even replaced, such peer punishment mechanisms with pool punishment, where punish

200 king in adulthood, but the effects of AIE on punishment-mediated decision-making have not been explor

201 E increases behavioral inefficiency, but not punishment-mediated risk-taking, in adulthood.

202 AIE did not alter punishment-mediated risky decision-making.

203 ctively interfere with excessive associative punishment memories, e.g., after traumatic experiences.

204 experienced at the moment of "relief." Such punishment memory and relief memory are found in insects

205 orresponding molecular commonalities between punishment memory and relief memory in humans would cons

206 Thus, both punishment memory and relief memory require the Synapsin

207 In contrast, both punishment memory and relief memory scores are reduced.

208 ice balance for monetary reward but also for punishment (monetary loss).

209 11 y, we find that the threat of third-party punishment more than doubles cooperation rates, despite

210 Reward and punishment motivate behavior, but it is unclear exactly

211 Following the cessation of punishment, NAC-treated LgA rats failed to recover fully

212 re individuals cooperate under the threat of punishment, occurs not only in humans, but is also obser

213 ives, and individual punishment costs on the punishment of defectors.

214 r effects on behavior if groups promote peer punishment of free riders.

215 Current models show that punishment of information gathering can be beneficial be

216 eases imprisonment through the detection and punishment of low-level offending or violation behavior.

217 pensation of victims-and to a lesser extent, punishment of offenders-was uniquely driven by traits re

218 were specifically associated with increased punishment of proposers who made unfair offers, indicati

219 opportunity to engage in costly third-party punishment of selfish sharing behavior.

220 valuation task that incorporates rewards and punishments of different nature, we identify distributed

221 g us to disentangle the impact of reward and punishment on instrumental learning from Pavlovian respo

222 neurons signal information about reward and punishment on multiple timescales.

223 ned with the hypothesized effects of capital punishment on self-domestication in the Pleistocene.

224 a dissociation of the effects of reward and punishment on the tasks, primarily reflecting the impact

225 ulates the impact of costs, such as delay or punishment, on action selection.

226 rect reciprocity, is crowded out by indirect punishment opportunities.

227 presentation of cues that predicted reward, punishment or neutral outcomes and investigated individu

228 ng to the group they were allocated: reward, punishment or no feedback (neutral).

229 ration is not correlated with norm-enforcing punishment or non-competitiveness.

230 vation associated with the representation of punishment or reward information during an event-related

231 rian resource distribution in the absence of punishment or warfare.

232 lear whether this is restricted to external (punishment) or includes internal (response errors) event

233 tion, self-imposed abstinence in the face of punishment, or propensity to relapse.

234 excessive focus on rewards, insensitivity to punishment, or to dysfunction in a particular stage of r

235 lable options such as the possible reward or punishment outcomes and the costs associated with potent

236 strong bias to amplify the aversive value of punishment outcomes following conflict.

237 e and passive responses following reward and punishment outcomes.

238 and reward (p<0.001), greater sensitivity to punishment (p=0.06), and lower non-food reward behavior

239 ment increased between ages 6 and 8, bias in punishment partially decreased.

240 titutions make the study of social image and punishment particularly salient.

241 cipants showed a reduced correlation between punishment PEs, but not reward PEs, and activity within

242 Punishment prediction error signalling in offenders with

243 ions on neural representations of reward and punishment prediction errors within the ventral striatum

244 ult from deficits in attentional control and punishment prediction, respectively, and that they provi

245 This synchrony declined as a function of punishment probability, suggesting that during reward-se

246 However, using a histamine punishment procedure that greatly suppresses drug-taking

247 globus pallidus internus (GPi) in reward and punishment processing, and deep brain stimulation (DBS)

248 It has been argued that punishment promotes the evolution of cooperation when mu

249 we consider how phenomena such as altruistic punishment, prosocial contagion, self-other similarity,

250 will beliefs predicted support for criminal punishment regardless of countries' institutional integr

251 ayed a diverse repertoire of reward-related, punishment-related, and uncertainty-related behaviors, w

252 y, the development of in-group bias in their punishment remains unknown.

253 ity to switch from controlled to compulsive, punishment-resistant alcohol seeking.

254 is known about the neural representation of punishment risk during reward-seeking behavior.

255 Our findings clarify punishment's adaptive basis, offer a case study of the e

256 g blameworthiness ratings, and fMRI revealed punishment-selective DLPFC recruitment, suggesting that

257 ces in the cost of conflict on reward versus punishment sensitivity are also related to a genetic pol

258 Punishment sensitivity correlated positively with ventra

259 ate-dependent reorientation of reward versus punishment sensitivity during inflammation.

260 , indicating that the lesions did not impair punishment sensitivity.

261 graphic descriptions of harmful acts amplify punishment severity, boost amygdala activity and strengt

262 , DL1 cluster neurons convey a corresponding punishment signal [5], suggesting a cellular division of

263 n of labor to convey dopaminergic reward and punishment signals.

264 Response-contingent punishment significantly reduced methamphetamine taking

265 ory experiment, we vary the structure of the punishment situation to disentangle the effects of punit

266 Response-contingent punishment suppressed extended-access methamphetamine or

267 ed functional connectivity of the non-reward/punishment system (Brodmann area 47/12) with the precune

268 od-trained rats showed greater resistance to punishment than methamphetamine-trained rats.

269 rol and SocAnh groups showed a larger FRN to punishment than reward, the PE group showed similar FRNs

270 her region induced a negative bias away from punishment that could be ameliorated with anxiolytic tre

271 emerging that suggest a neural framework for punishment that could one day have important legal and s

272 complex normative behaviours (prosociality, punishment) that require integration of social contextua

273 sistent with a reduced tendency to engage in punishment; this was associated with decreased grey matt

274 nsity to react opportunistically to credible punishment threats is often sufficient to establish stab

275 ime of the decision to assign an appropriate punishment through a distributed coding system.

276 show that DRN neurons encode reward, but not punishment, through 5-HT and glutamate.

277 n unresolved gap in the transition from peer-punishment to centralized punishment.

278 osed that this region uses information about punishment to control aversively motivated actions.

279 Introducing costly punishment to diversity disfavors defection but favors c

280 Both mechanisms-punishment to force blind decisions and preferential int

281 We study the effectiveness of third-party punishment to increase children's cooperative behavior i

282 nate feeding behaviors and act as rewards or punishments to entrain other cues.

283 ing group members, and providing appropriate punishments to those who deviate from group aims.

284 Third-party punishment (TPP), in which unaffected observers punish s

285 Also, this first demonstration of punishment-uncertainty signals in the brain suggests tha

286 Punishment undergirds large-scale cooperation and helps

287 s implicitly modulate experienced reward and punishment values as a function of conflict.

288 participants to learn the associated reward/punishment values of previously neutral stimuli and cont

289 mice experienced a task in which rewards and punishments varied across blocks of trials.

290 ty and the effect of graphic descriptions on punishment was abolished.

291 ic inhibition showed that this resistance to punishment was due in part to RMTg activity at the preci

292 e more likely than controls to respond as if punishment was likely when the cone was placed near to t

293 Results showed that punishment was not more prevalent in extraordinary altru

294 ehaviorally attractive, and those leading to punishments were more aversive.

295 We observed a similar resistance to punishment when the RMTg was selectively inhibited immed

296 d, such peer punishment mechanisms with pool punishment, where punishment is outsourced to central in

297 reaction to correct beliefs that third party punishment will increase a partner's level of cooperatio

298 fictional and real peers, and the threat of punishment will lead preschoolers to behave more generou

299 cholinergic neurons responded to reward and punishment with unusual speed and precision (18 +/- 3 ms

300 with a numerically larger FRN to reward than punishment (with similar results on these trials also fo