However, the effect of risk pressure on dACC activity reversed depending on choice. A positive effect of risk pressure on dACC activity was apparent when subjects chose

the safer option, whereas a negative effect was apparent when subjects chose the riskier option. In other words, dACC activity increased with increasing risk pressure when choices went against the prevailing risk pressure but decreased EGFR inhibitor with increasing risk pressure when subjects chose in agreement with risk pressure (Figures 4C and 5A). The dACC risk pressure signal cannot be explained away as a signal-indexing approach toward a reward that might be delivered at the end of the block (Croxson et al., 2009 and Shidara and Richmond, 2002), because progress through the sequence selleck screening library of trials itself was present as a separate regressor in the general linear model (GLM) and associated with an independent effect on dACC activity (this is the effect already shown; Figure 3B). The risk

pressure signal cannot be explained away as a consequence of differing average reward expectations associated with different target levels because the use of a “multiplier” procedure (see the Experimental Task section in Experimental Procedures) ensured that average reward expectations were the same at the beginning of a block regardless of the target. It is, however, the case either that expectations about the reward that would be received at the end of the block (as opposed to just after the current trial within the block) began to diverge as soon as participants began to make choices and were either lucky or unlucky. However, when we included an additional term in the GLM indexing the expected value of the reward at the end of the block we found that it had an independent

effect on dACC activity (Figure 5B). No similar signal was observed in vmPFC (Figure S6). In summary, dACC exhibited a number of signals related to progress through the sequence of decisions, the expected reward at the end of the sequence, and a risk pressure signal indexing the need to take riskier choices as a function of contextual factors (accumulated resources, target, and remaining foraging opportunities). The risk pressure signal flipped with the decision strategy that subjects pursued (safer versus riskier); it was positive when subjects needed to change their behavior and switch to riskier choices as opposed to the default safer choice. In addition to these contextual effects, the same dACC region also exhibited activity that was tied to specific patterns of choice and choice valuation. dACC activity was higher in decisions in which the riskier rather than the safer choice was taken (choiceriskier − choicesafer; Figure 4A).