ArticleBiological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging2026
Understanding Effort-Cost Decision-Making Mechanisms in Mood and Psychotic Disorders: A Computational Modeling Approach Across Physical and Cognitive Effort Paradigms.
Article in Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nociceptin orphanin F/Q Pathways are dysregulated by stress and modulate reward responsiveness and motivated behavior across species.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Blunted experience of pleasure, unsystematic subjective value representation, and disrupted goal-directed behaviors: an ecological momentary assessment study across mood and psychotic disorders.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffort-cost decision making (ECDM) is a core component of motivational deficits across diagnostic boundaries, but the mechanisms underlying ECDM deficits are not yet fully understood. Importantly, similar behavioral phenotypes during ECDM paradigms may be associated with distinct underlying cognitive and affective processes across individuals.
methodsWe used a person-centered modeling approach to examine individual decision-making phenotypes (systematic or nonsystematic decision making) during both physical and cognitive ECDM in 5 diagnostic groups: healthy control (n = 90), schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) (n = 67), current major depression (n = 70), remitted major depression (n = 52), and bipolar I disorder (n = 64). We examined the associations between ECDM phenotype, cognitive functioning, motivation, and diagnostic group.
resultsWe found significant diagnostic group differences in the ECDM phenotype, such that individuals with an SSD, but not current or remitted major depression or bipolar disorder, were less likely to incorporate changing trialwise reward value information in cognitive effort exertion, with the same trend for physical effort. In all diagnostic groups, nonsystematic decision making was associated with lower cognitive functioning but not lower motivation. In addition, individuals with an SSD showed steeper effort discounting during both physical and cognitive ECDM paradigms.
conclusionsThese findings point toward substantial individual differences in ECDM phenotypes both within and across diagnostic boundaries, suggesting that deficits in subjective value representation may be more prevalent in psychosis compared with in mood disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.