! ! SHARING!ALL!THE!WAY!TO!THE!BANK:!A!NEUROIMAGING!INVESTIGATION!! OF!DISCLOSURE,!REWARD,!AND!SELF! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! by! ! WILLIAM!EVERETT!MOORE!III! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A!DISSERTATION! ! Presented!to!the!Department!of!Psychology! and!the!Graduate!School!of!the!University!of!Oregon! in!partial!fulfillment!of!the!requirements! for!the!degree!of! Doctor!of!Philosophy!! ! September!2015! ii! DISSERTATION!APPROVAL!PAGE! ! Student:!William!Everett!Moore!III! ! Title:!Sharing!All!the!Way!to!the!Bank:!A!Neuroimaging!Investigation!of! Disclosure,!Reward,!and!Self! ! This!dissertation!has!been!accepted!and!approved!in!partial!fulfillment!of!the! requirements!for!the!Doctor!of!Philosophy!degree!in!the!Department!of! Psychology!by:! ! Jennifer!H.!Pfeifer! Chairperson! Elliot!T.!Berkman! Core!Member! Nicholas!B.!Allen! Core!Member! Mark!Alfonso! Institutional!Representative! ! and! ! Scott!L.!Pratt! Dean!of!the!Graduate!School!! ! Original!approval!signatures!are!on!file!with!the!University!of!Oregon!Graduate! School.! ! Degree!awarded!September!2015! iii! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ©!2015!William!Everett!Moore!III!! !! ! ! ! ! ! iv! DISSERTATION!ABSTRACT! ! William!Everett!Moore!III! ! Doctor!of!Philosophy! ! Department!of!Psychology! ! September!2015! ! Title:!Sharing!All!the!Way!to!the!Bank:!A!Neuroimaging!Investigation!of! Disclosure,!Reward,!and!Self! ! ! No!neuroimaging!investigation!to!date!has!considered!the!effects!of!social! context!on!selfYreferential!processing,!despite!the!fact!that!the!hypothesis!that! people!engage!different!selves!in!different!contexts!has!been!with!psychology!for! more!than!a!century.!To!address!this!gap!in!the!empirical!record,!a!suite!of!three! functional!magnetic!resonance!imaging!(fMRI)!experiments!was!conducted!in! order!to!assess!patterns!of!neural!activity!associated!with!selfYreferential! (compared!to!nonYselfYreferential)!processes!(Experiment!1),!computational! models!of!reinforcementYlearning!processes!(Experiment!2),!and!social!context! modulation!of!personally!relevant!cognition!(Experiment!3).!I!demonstrate!that! distinct!patterns!of!neural!activity!in!cortical!midline!structures!and!the!mesial! ventral!striatum!are!associated!with!thinking!about!the!self!privately,!sharing! information!about!the!self!with!a!parent,!and!sharing!with!a!friend.!These! differentiated!disclosure!responses!(Experiment!3)!are!evident!at!the!whole!brain! level!and!in!regions!of!interest!defined!by!functional!activity!in!independent!tasks!of! self!(Experiment!1)!and!reward!(Experiment!2).!In!addition!to!providing!empirical! evidence!for!contextually!differentiated!selfYrepresentations!in!the!brain,!this! dissertation!validates!the!use!of!fMRI!paradigms!designed!to!functionally!localize! selfYreferential!and!rewardYrelated!activity!either!independently!or!in!conjunction,! as!well!as!distinguish!components!of!ventral!striatal!activity!unique!to!each!task.! Finally,!I!consider!strategies!for!approaching!future!investigations!of!self!and!social! cognition!in!terms!of!reinforcement!learning.! v! CURRICULUM!VITAE! ! NAME!OF!AUTHOR:!!William!Everett!Moore!III! ! ! GRADUATE!AND!UNDERGRADUATE!SCHOOLS!ATTENDED:! ! ! University!of!Oregon,!Eugene! ! University!of!North!Carolina!at!Chapel!Hill! ! ! DEGREES!AWARDED:! ! ! Doctor!of!Philosophy,!2015,!University!of!Oregon! ! Master!of!Science,!2011,!University!of!Oregon! ! Bachelor!of!Science,!2006,!University!of!North!Carolina!at!Chapel!Hill! ! ! AREAS!OF!SPECIAL!INTEREST:! ! ! Neuroscience! ! Functional!Magnetic!Resonance!Imaging! ! ! PROFESSIONAL!EXPERIENCE:! ! ! Graduate!Teaching!Fellow,!University!of!Oregon!Psychology!Department,!! ! 2009Y2015! ! ! PUBLICATIONS:! ! !!! Jankowski,!K.F.,!Moore,!W.E.!III,!Merchant,!J.S.,!Kahn,!L.E.,!&!Pfeifer,!J.H.! (2014).!But!do!you!think!I'm!cool?!Developmental!differences!in!striatal! recruitment!during!direct!and!reflected!social!selfYevaluations.! Developmental+Cognitive+Neuroscience,!8,!40Y54.!!! !!! Moore,!W.E.,!Merchant,!J.S.,!Kahn,!L.E.,!&!Pfeifer,!J.H.!(2014).!Like!me?:!! ventromedial!prefrontal!cortex!is!sensitive!to!both!personal!relevance!!and! selfYsimilarity!during!social!comparisons.!Social+Cognitive+and+Affective+ Neuroscience,!9(4),!421Y426.!!! !!! Bruce,!J.,!Fisher,!P.A.,!Graham,!A.M.,!Moore,!W.E.,!Peake,!S.J.,!&!Mannering,! A.M.!(2013).!Patterns!of!brain!activation!in!foster!children!and! vi! nonmaltreated!children!during!an!inhibitory!control!task.!Development+and+ Psychopathology,!25(4),!931Y941.!!!! !!! Peake,!S.J.,!Dishion,!T.J.,!Stormshak,!E.A.,!Moore,!W.E.,!&!Pfeifer,!J.H.!! (2013).!RiskYtaking!and!social!exclusion!in!adolescence:!neural! mechanisms!underlying!peer!influences!on!decision!making.! NeuroImage,!82,!23Y34.!!!! !!! Moore,!W.E,!Pfeifer,!J.H.,!Masten,!C.L.,!Mazziotta,!J.C.,!Iacoboni,!M.,!&! Dapretto,!M.!(2012).!Facing!puberty:!associations!between!pubertal! development!and!neural!responses!to!affective!facial!displays.!Social+ Cognitive+and+Affective+Neuroscience,!7(1),!35Y43.!!!! !!! Pfeifer,!J.H.,!Moore,!W.E.,!Oswald,!T.O.,!Masten,!C.L.,!Mazziotta,!J.C.,!Iacoboni,!! M.,!&!Dapretto,!M.!(2011).!Entering!adolescence:!resistance!to!peer! influence,!risky!behavior,!and!neural!changes!in!emotion!reactivity.! Neuron,!69(5),!1029Y1036.!! !! ! vii! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS! ! I!would!like!to!express!my!sincerest!thanks!to!my!Esteemed!Committee! Members!for!their!patience,!wisdom,!and!guidance!in!the!preparation!of!this! manuscript.!Specifically,!I!would!like!to!thank:!Dr.!Nicolas!B.!Allen!for!his! infectiously!positive!skepticism,!without!which!my!search!of!the!problem!space! would!have!been!considerably!less!fruitful!and!less!pleasant.!Dr.!Mark!Alfano,! who!groks!in!but!an!instant!ideas!I!have!wrestled!for!an!age,!for!reminding!me! that!a!test!is!only!as!good!as!the!questions!it!informs.!Dr.!Elliot!T.!Berkman,! whose!earnest!love!of!science!is!as!deep!as!is!his!profound!knowledge!of!it.!I! would!not!be!the!scientist!I!am!without!his!tutelage!or!outstanding!examples!of! optimally!resolving!curiosity!through!pragmatic!satisficing.!Finally,!I!would!like!to! express!my!deepest!gratitude!to!Dr.!Jennifer!H.!Pfeifer,!whose!mentorship!and! model!leave!me!different!than!I!was.!Were!it!not!for!her!I!would!know!not!how!to! write!or!write!a!shell!script!or!a!voxel!or!a!parcel!of!the!parcellated!mind.!I!would! like!to!acknowledge!her!commitment!not!only!to!methodological!rigor!in!a!field! fraught!with!all!the!noise!of!teenagers!and!time,!but!to!the!brain!as!a!dynamic! system!and!to!science!as!an!effort!that!is!fundamentally!collaborative.!I!would! like!to!thank!Drs.!Tor!Wager,!Russ!Poldrack,!Tal!Yarkoni,!Luke!Chang,!and! Diana!Tamir!for!the!seminal!roles!they!played!in!my!development!as!a! neuroimager.!Scott!Wattrous,!a!technoshaman!par+excellence,!taught!me!how!to! actively!integrate!the!practice!of!science!into!one’s!heart,!mind,!and!life.!I!will!be! forever!grateful!to!have!learned!at!the!feet!of!such!an!epic!master!of!the!magnet.! Dr.!Jolinda!Smith!is!responsible!for!my!fledgling!understanding!of!the!whims!of! the!great!magnet,!according!to!which!it!is!said!that!all!things!flow,!and!her! repeated,!patient!explanations!lie!at!the!core!of!what!makes!me!ok!with!kspace.! Chuck!Theobald’s!resolute!commitment!to!information!betrays!a!passion!for!text! and!a!wisdom!to!maintain!it!I!hope!to!carry!with!me!always,!and!I!much! appreciate!his!transmission!of!said!signals.!David!Anderson,!an!arcane!sorcerer! of!the!hermetic!tradition,!has!given!me!perspective!and!insight!into!the!mind!of!a! true!scientist,!with!a!relentless!commitment!to!exploring!the!universe.!Ryan! Giuliano!pushes!me!always!to!grow!from!our!collective!failure!to!ignore!the!white! viii! bear,!and!I!am!honored!to!have!known!a!sorcerer!whose!school!defies! classification.!I!feel!fortunate!to!have!likewise!stood!and!studied!with!the!warlock! Brian!Clark,!who!not!only!encourages!me!to!be!as!skeptical!of!empirical! conclusions!as!moral!ones,!but!enriches!my!understanding!of!the!difference.! Shannon!Peake!is!the!finest!office!mate!one!ever!might!know,!and!I!will!always! be!grateful!for!the!kindness,!wisdom,!and!insight!with!which!he!is!so!generous.! LEK’s!harmonies!transcend!the!acoustic!and!evince!themselves!in!raw! information,!and!I!will!forever!be!in!awe!of!her!ability!to!juggle!in!literal!or! metaphorical!senses.!I!would!like!to!thank!Junaid!Merchant!for!turning!me!on!to! Social!Neuroscience,!for!sharing!with!me!his!brilliant!ideas!about!it,!for!his!epic! patience!with!complaints!about!said!science,!and!for!decades!of!lessons! concerning!the!former!aspect!of!our!discipline.!I!would!like!to!thank!Morgan! Johnson,!premier!nerd!wrangler,!for!helping!me!to!rediscover!a!part!of!myself!I! thought!long!dead,!for!introducing!me!to!brilliant!folk!from!all!walks!of!life,!and!for! prospectively!agreeing!to!teach!me!how!to!surf.!I!would!like!to!thank,!Tanner! Bower,!for!helping!me!to!discover!a!part!of!myself!I!only!ever!suspected!was! alive,!and!his!mentorship,!kindness,!and!wisdom!enrich!my!science!and!my!life.! The!Upstanding!Gentlemen!Next!Door!provided!the!live!soundtrack!to!which!the! bulk!of!this!work!was!composed,!and!were!their!jams!less!icy,!the!process!would! have!been!far!less!pleasant.!Nathan!Alter,!in!particular,!deserves!thanks!for! reminding!me!that!writing!is!a!broader!pursuit!than!that!of!scientific!publication.!I! would!like!to!thank!my!parents,!Bill!and!Nancy!Moore,!whose!patience!with! respect!to!all!my!selfYdisclosures!continues!to!prove!invaluable.!I!would!never! have!succeeded!at!much!without!their!constant!love!and!support.!I!would!like! also!to!thank!my!Aunts!Dr.!Allison!O’Brien!and!Dr.!CarolYAnne!Coyle,!for!their! patience,!guidance,!and!perspective!in!completing!this!challenging!process.!I! would!like!to!thank!Jake,!Wes,!and!Mona!Hartman!for!their!tolerance!and! support!throughout!the!completion!of!my!degree,!but!more!importantly!for! making!me!a!part!of!their!family!and!for!sharing!with!me!Alexandra,!my!role! model!and!muse.!It!is!indeed!my!most!peculiar!self!that!resides!in!her!mind,!or! hers!in!mine,!and!I!cannot!imagine!my!life!without!our!potential!social!we.! ix! TABLE!OF!CONTENTS! Chapter! Page! ! ! I.!BACKGROUND!...........................................................................................!! 1! ! SelfYrelevance!as!ValueYbased!Decision!Making!......................................!! 1! ! Neural!Substrates!of!SelfYrelevant!Processes!..........................................!! 2! ! ! In!Pursuit!of!Reward!.................................................................................!! 5! Learning!Models:!Making!the!Distinction!between! ! Value!and!Reward!...............................................................................!! 5! ! Measuring!Prediction!Error!Signals!in!the!Brain!..................................!! 7! ! Neuroeconomics:!A!New!Science!of!Decision!Making!.............................!! 8! II.!MOTIVATION!FOR!THE!CURRENT!STUDY!.............................................!! 13! ! Value!as!the!Link!between!Self!and!Reward!............................................!! 13! ! Stated!Goals!.............................................................................................!! 18! ! Predictions!................................................................................................!! 19! III.!METHODS!.................................................................................................!! 22! ! Participants!...............................................................................................!! 22! ! Procedures!................................................................................................!! 22! ! Experiment!1:!Self!Versus!Change!Paradigm!!....................................!! 22! ! Experiment!2:!Probabilistic!Decision!Making!Paradigm!......................!! 24! ! Experiment!3:!Differential!SelfYDisclosure!Paradigm!...........................!! 25! ! Neuroimaging!Data!Acquisition!and!Image!Processing!............................!! 27! ! Data!Analysis!............................................................................................!! 28! ! Model!Specification,!Experiment!1!(Self!Versus!Change)!...................!! 28! x! Chapter! Page! ! ! ! Model!Specification,!Experiment!2!(Probabilistic!Decision!Making)!....!! 29! ! Conjunction!Across!Experiments!1!and!2!............................................!! 30! ! Model!Specification,!Experiment!3!(Differential!SelfYDisclosure)!........!! 31! ! Neuroinformatics!Approach!......................................................................!! 31! ! Background!.........................................................................................!! 31! ! Formalizing!Reverse!Inference!with!Neurosynth!and!Neurovault!.......!! 32! IV.!RESULTS!.................................................................................................!! 35! ! Neuroimaging!Results,!Experiment!1!(Self!Versus!Change)!....................!! 35! ! Neuroimaging!Results,!Experiment!2!(Probabilistic!Decision!Making)!.....!! 37! ! Conjunction!Across!Experiments!1!and!2!.................................................!! 40! ! Behavioral!Results,!Experiment!3!(Differential!SelfYDisclosure)!...............!! 40! ! Neuroimaging!Results,!Experiment!3!(Differential!SelfYDisclosure)!..........!! 43! V.!DISCUSSION!.............................................................................................!! 51! ! Overview!...................................................................................................!! 51! ! Conclusions!..............................................................................................!! 51! ! Personal!Relevance!and!Reward!Prediction!Error!Signals!.................!! 51! ! Independent!and!Overlapping!Neural!Correlates!of! ! SelfYevaluation!and!ValueYbased!Decision!Making!.............................!! 52! ! Effects!of!Disclosure!Audience!............................................................!! 53! ! Differential!Assignment!of!Personal!Relevance!and!Value! ! in!Functionally!Defined!Regions!of!Interest!.........................................!! 55! ! Implications!and!Next!Steps!.....................................................................!! 56! ! Limitations!and!Alternative!Interpretations!................................................!! 58! xi! Chapter! Page! ! ! ! Impact!and!Future!Directions!....................................................................!! 61! ! A!New!Paradigm!for!SelfYreferential!Processing!.................................!! 61! ! Implications!for!Development!and!Psychopathology!...........................!! 62! ! Concluding!Remarks!...........................................................................!! 63! REFERENCES!CITED!...................................................................................!! 65! ! xii! LIST!OF!FIGURES! ! Figure! Page! ! ! 1.! Biological!computations!underlying!valueYbased!decision!making!...........!! 10! 2.! Valuation!systems!for!brain!and!behavior.!................................................!! 11! ! 3.! SelfYreference,!personal!relevance,!and!value!assignment!......................!! 16! 4.! Self!versus!change!paradigm!(Experiment!1)!...........................................!! 23! 5.! Probabilistic!decision!making!paradigm!(Experiment!2)!...........................!! 25! 6.! Differential!selfYdisclosure!paradigm!(Experiment!3)!................................!! 26! 7.! WholeYbrain!SPM!for!self!versus!change!..................................................!! 36! 8.! WholeYbrain!SPM!for!reward!prediction!error!...........................................!! 38! 9.! WholeYbrain!SPM!for!conjunction!analysis!(Experiments!1!&!2)!...............!! 41! 10.!Coins!earned!by!prospective!disclosure!condition!....................................!! 42! 11.!Effect!of!audience!on!disclosure!choices!..................................................!! 42! 12.!WholeYbrain!SPMs!for!selfYdisclosure!contrasts!.......................................!! 44! 13.!WholeYbrain!SPM!for!sharing!versus!private!............................................!! 44! 14.!SelfYdisclosure!activity!in!conjunction!ROIs!..............................................!! 47! 15.!SelfYdisclosure!activity!in!selfYrelevance!ROIs!..........................................!! 48! 16.!SelfYdisclosure!activity!in!reward!prediction!error!ROIs!............................!! 50! ! xiii! LIST!OF!TABLES! ! Table! Page! ! ! 1.! Peak!MNI!statistics!for!self!versus!change!(Experiment!1)!.......................!! 36! 2.! Peak!MNI!statistics!for!reward!prediction!error!(Experiment!2)!................!! 38! ! 3.! Peak!MNI!statistics!for!conjunction!across!self!and!reward!!.....................!! 41! 4.! Peak!MNI!statistics!for!differential!selfYdisclosure!(Experiment!3)!............!! 45! 5.! SelfYdisclosure!activity!in!conjunction!ROIs!..............................................!! 46! 6.! SelfYdisclosure!activity!in!selfYrelevance!ROIs!..........................................!! 48! 7.! SelfYdisclosure!activity!in!reward!prediction!error!ROIs!............................!! 49! ! ! 1! CHAPTER(I( BACKGROUND( ( Self5relevance(as(Value5based(Decision(Making( " In"each"kind"of"self,"material,"social,"and"spiritual,"men"distinguish" between"the"immediate"and"actual,"and"the"remote"and"potential,"between" the"narrower"and"the"wider"view,"to"the"detriment"of"the"former"and" advantage"of"the"latter."One"must"forego"a"present"bodily"enjoyment"for" the"sake"of"one’s"general"health?"one"must"abandon"the"dollar"in"the"hand" for"the"sake"of"the"hundred"dollars"to"come."One"must"make"an"enemy"of" his"present"interlocutor"if"thereby"one"makes"friends"of"a"more"valued" circle?"one"must"go"without"learning"and"grace,"and"wit,"the"better"to" compass"one’s"soul’s"salvation."Of#all#these#wider,#more#potential#selves,# the#potential#social#Me#is#the#most#interesting."(James,"1890,"p."191)" " William"James"proposed"that"distinct"selves"within"an"individual"are" defined"by"choices"between"shortGterm"outcomes"and"longGterm"consequences." This"is,"informally,"a"key"difference"between"reward"(an"immediate"consequence)" and"value"(a"longGterm"estimate"about"rewards"from"now"on)."The"intersection"of" self,"value,"and"reward"are"especially"interesting"in"the"context"of"the"broad" hypothesis"that"self"and"reward"are"fundamentally"related"processes"(Northoff" and"Hayes,"2011)."Relating"the"interoceptive"signals"that"describe"an"organism’s" internal"state"to"the"external"sensory"stimuli"in"the"environment"has"been" separately"proposed"as"an"essential"function"of"both"reward"(Montague"and" Berns,"2002)"and"the"self"(Enzi,"et"al.,"2009)."Explaining"how"people"override"the" temptation"to"choose"a"cool,"crisp"dollar"bill"for"the"self"of"right"this"second" instead"of"one"hundred"dollars"for"some"abstract"future"self"is"the"exact"sort"of" problem"that"contemporary"neuroeconomics"approaches"attempt"to"solve"by" considering"the"underlying"computations"(Rangel,"Camerer,"and"Montague," 2008)."Coupled"with"demonstrations"that"different"aspects"of"the"self"are" differentially"valued"in"the"brain"(D’Argembeau"et"al.,"2011)"and"the"same"neural" mechanisms"compute"social"and"monetary"value"(Izuma,"Saito,"and"Sadato," 2! 2008),"a"logical"next"step"is"to"extend"these"findings"by"demonstrating"that,"in" behavior"and"in"the"brain,"potential"social"selves"are"more"highly"valued"than"the" immediate"private"self."This"dissertation"first"presents"historical"and"scientific" context"for"contemporary"neuroimaging"investigations"of"the"self."Subsequently," empirical"approaches"to"reward"are"evaluated"in"terms"of"their"applicability"to" probabilistic"decisionGmaking."Finally,"neuroeconomics"is"considered"as"a" possible"avenue"from"which"to"mutually"inform"investigations"of"the"self"and" reward." Neural(Substrates(of(Self5relevant(Processes( The"earliest"fMRI"investigation"of"the"self"was"an"attempt"to"resolve"a" dispute"about"the"underlying"causes"of"the"“selfGreference"memory"effect,”"which" describes"people’s"tendency"to"exhibit"superior"recall"for"trait"adjectives"encoded" in"terms"of"the"self."One"interpretation"framed"the"effect"as"a"logical"extension"of" the"depthGofGprocessing"effect,"explaining"enhanced"recall"performance"as"a" consequence"of"the"vast"amount"of"selfGrelevant"information"in"memory,"which" increases"the"likelihood"that"a"stimulus"presented"in"this"context"will"be"more" richly"encoded"(Klein"and"Loftus,"1988)."The"competing"hypothesis"maintained" that"self"is"a"special"construct"which"receives"privileged"information"processing" status"(Rogers"et"al.,"1977)."An"experiment"using"fMRI"supported"the"latter" hypothesis,"demonstrating"that"trait"adjectives"encoded"in"terms"of"the"self"were" more"strongly"associated"with"activity"in"the"ventromedial"prefrontal"cortex" (vmPFC),"and"that"this"activity"subsequently"predicted"recall"during"a"surprise" memory"test"(Kelley,"et"al.,"2002)."This"finding"represented"a"powerful"proofGofG concept"for"the"utility"of"fMRI"for"addressing"questions"that"cannot"be"answered" with"a"purely"behavioral"approach."In"addition"to"a"succinct"methodological" demonstration,"it"provided"strong"evidence"to"directly"resolve"active"scientific" debate,"as"well"as"the"first"support"for"a"biological"substrate"of"selfGreferential" processing."" 3! Collectively,"these"factors"led"to"a"spike"in"neuroimaging"investigations"of" the"self,"and"the"tide"of"findings"broadly"implicating"medial"prefrontal"cortex" (mPFC)"in"selfGrelevant"and"social"cognition"swelled"to"critical"mass"for"metaG analytic"approaches"in"just"a"few"short"years,"linking"activity"in"mPFC"across" dozens"of"investigations"to"making"judgments"about"the"enduring"characteristics" of"others"(Van"Overwalle,"2009),"to"explicit"selfGreflection""(Van"Der"Meer," Costafreda,"Aleman,"and"David,"2010),"and"to"processing"social"stimuli"with"a" high"degree"of"selfGrelevance"(Enzi"et"al.,"2009)."The"vmPFC"in"particular" exhibits"heightened"responses"during"nonGcomparative"judgments"about"selfG similar"(as"opposed"to"dissimilar),"unfamiliar"social"targets"(Mitchell,"Macrae,"and" Banaji,"2006)."However,"the"vmPFC"has"alternatively"been"implicated"in" representing"the"degree"of"personal"closeness"for"social"stimuli,"responding" preferentially"to"targets"with"heightened"social"relevance,"regardless"of"the" degree"of"similarity"between"the"self"and"judgment"target"(Krienen,"Tu,"and" Buckner,"2010)."A"previous"attempt"in"our"laboratory"to"investigate"the"self"along" multiple"dimensions"employed"comparative"social"judgments"between"personally" relevant"others"and/or"the"self,"providing"neuroimaging"evidence"for"the" hypothesis"that"comparisons"between"the"self"and"similar"others"preferentially" engage"a"subregion"of"mPFC,"perigenual"anterior"cingulate"cortex"(pgACC?" Moore,"Merchant,"Kahn,"and"Pfeifer,"2014)."Additional"results"characterized"the" pgACC"as"simultaneously"sensitive"to"the"degree"of"selfGrelevance" (operationalized"here"as"personal"involvement)"of"a"judgment"and"the"extent"to" which"nonGself"judgment"targets"were"regarded"as"personally"similar." Across"many"of"these"neuroimaging"investigations"of"selfGrelevant" cognition,"positive"differences"in"BOLD"signal"across"conditions"were"actually"" relative"differences,"and"reflected"“less"deactivation”"rather"than"“activation”" compared"to"a"resting"baseline,"similar"to"patterns"typically"observed"in"the" brain’s"Default"Mode"Network"(DMN?"Buckner"and"Caroll,"2007)."The"DMN"is"an" interconnected"group"of"regions"that"responds"to"most"stimuli"with"a"marked" disengagement"from"the"high"levels"of"coordinated"activity"observed"during" stimulusGindependent"thought."However,"a"wide"variety"of"tasks"assessing"selfG" 4! and"social"cognition"have"been"associated"with"“less"negative,”"or"even"explicitly" positive,"changes"in"DMN"from"resting"state"levels"of"activity,"(D’Argembeau"et" al.,"2005)."An"analysis"of"resting"state"activity"and"cognitively"demanding"tasks"of" episodic"retrieval"and"prospective"memory"(e.g.,"imagining"the"self"in"the"future)" suggested"that"prospective#self9referential#cognition"most"strongly"resembles"the" DMN"at"rest,"which"recalling"the"past"elicits"the"typical"“deactivation”"(WhitfieldG Gabrieli"et"al.,"2011)." An"experiment"at"the"single"cell"level"in"deep"brain"stimulation"patients" paints"a"similar"picture"in"the"subcallosal"cingulate"(scCC?"an"area"slightly"inferior" and"posterior"to"pgACC),"suggesting"that"the"individual"firing"rates"of"cingulate" neurons"do"not"change"from"a"resting"baseline"in"response"to"the"presentation"of" one’s"own"name,"but"that"presentation"of"another"person’s"name"elicits"a" dramatic"increase"in"the"spiking"output"of"these"cells"(Lipsman"et"al.,"2014)." However,"this"experiment"did"not"vary"the"personal"relevance"of"“other”"names" presented,"and"while"findings"from"single"neurons"and"groupGlevel"wholeGbrain" analyses"simultaneously"implicate"mPFC"in"selfGrelevant"processes,"the"way"that" this"part"of"the"brain"distinguishes"between"the"self"and"personally"relevant" others"remains"unclear."The"same"investigators"who"initially"mapped"the"selfG reference"memory"effect"onto"activity"in"mPFC"have"proposed"that"the"general" role"of"this"region"in"selfGreferential"processing"may"be"(1)"an"extension"of"a"more" general"system"for"social"cognition,"(2)"a"metaGexecutive"function"integral"to"the" coordination"of"complex"attentional"states,"or"(3)"a"central"hub"for"integrating" external"sensory"cues"and""interoceptive"signals"with"abstract"cognitive"and" affective"states"(Moran,"Kelley,"and"Heatherton,"2013)."It"is"this"final"explanation," the"authors"maintain,"that"seems"most"consistent"with"our"understanding"of"DMN" coherence"during"stimulus"independent"thought"that"is"similar"for"tasks"of"selfG reference"but"sharply"reduced"for"stimuli"that"are"not"particularly"engaging"on"a" social"cognitive"level.""" ( 5! In(Pursuit(of(Reward( Historically,"the"psychological"study"of"reward"has"been"dominated"by" rewardGlearning,"as"“learning”"is"far"more"methodologically"convenient"to" measure"than"other"phenomena"that"fall"under"the"broad"reward"umbrella"GG"e.g." “reward"wanting”"(i.e."motivation),"or"“reward"liking”"(hedonic"state?"Montague" 2007)."Unlike"pleasure"or"desire,"learning"can"be"readily"quantified"in"terms"of" behavioral"change."Affect"and"motivation,"especially"in"animal"models,"are"not" easy"to"measure."It"is"perhaps"for"these"reasons"that"perspectives"on"reward" have"been"framed"primarily"in"terms"of"positive"reinforcement"for"appetitive" stimuli"that"most"effectively"shape"behavior"(e.g.,"fruit"juice)"(Montague,"2006)"–" for"which"there"is"no"negative"equivalent"(e.g.,"a"“notGjuice”"stimulus,"in"the" absence"of"a"relative"comparison"to"juice)."Although"these"two"trends"(reward"as" positive"reinforcer"and"the"dominance"of"rewardGlearning"paradigms)"continue"to" impact"contemporary"perspectives"and"nomenclature"on"reward,"recent" advances"in"neuroimaging"and"computer"science"hold"considerable"promise"for" understanding"the"more"abstract"aspects"of"rewardGrelated"processes." Learning#models:#Making#the#distinction#between#value#and#reward# Formal"models"of"animal"behavior"have"been"able"to"account"for" straightforward"kinds"of"learning"since"the"seminal"work"of"Bush"and"Mosteller" (1951),"but"Rescorla"and"Wagner"(1972)"extended"this"model"to"include"a" parameter"that"quantifies"the"abstract"associative"weight"(V)"between"multiple" sensory"properties"of"a"stimulus"(rather"than"using"the"raw"probability"that"the" sensory"events"happened"at"the"same"time)."This"critical"addition"enabled" researchers"to"account"for"previously"unsolvable"problems"in"classical" (Pavlovian)"conditioning."The"RescorlaGWagner"(RGW)"model"was"not"only" instrumental"in"shaping"the"application"of"formal"reinforcementGlearning"to"more" complex"kinds"of"behavior"like"operant"conditioning,"but"was"also"seminal"in" popularizing"the"use"of"computational"techniques"to"create"normative"frameworks" for"optimal"behavior"in"psychology"and"neuroscience"(Glimcher,"Dorris,"and" 6! Bayer,"2005)."Granted,"application"of"an"RGW"model"to"describe"a"single"trial"of" conditioning"based"purely"on"the"physical"features"of"stimuli,"or"even"an" extension"to"more"complex"kinds"of"learning"through"incremental"reinforcement," seems"more"than"a"little"remote"from"valueGbased"decision"making"in"humans." The"reason"the"RGW"model"continues"to"be"relevant"today"is"because"the" associative"weight,"V,"can"be"defined"in"terms"of"any"abstract"association,"it"is" not"restricted"to"paradigms"with"passive"stimulus"exposure."" Considering"a"much"more"complicated"experimental"situation"than"singleG trial"conditioning"(but"still"a"relatively"simple"one),"assume"that"a"juiceGloving" animal"is"presented"with"a"visual"stimulus"that"elicits"a"left"or"right"button"press." Immediately"thereafter,"some"amount"of"juice"is"delivered"to"him"based"on" predetermined"stimulusGresponse"contingencies."By"allowing"the"learning"rate"to" range"continuously"from"0G1"and"using"multiple"stimulusGresponse"contingencies" in"the"imagined"experiment,"we"can"obtain"precise"estimates"of"reward"(a"raw" numerical"index"of"“amount"of"juice"right"now”)"and"expected"value"(an"estimate" about"“how"much"juice"in"the"future”"from"each"available"stimulusGresponse" contingency"(i.e.,"that"stimulus"and"a"left"or"right"response)"on"each"trial."These" quantities"can"then"be"combined"to"index"the"extent"to"which"the"organism’s" predictions"deviate"from"its"perceived"outcomes."This"difference"between"an" organism’s"state"and"its"expectations"about"that"state"in"light"of"a"potentially" informative"stimulus"is"known"as"prediction#error"(PE)."When"the"reward"an" organism"receives"from"a"stimulus"perfectly"matches"the"value"it"expects,"there"is" no"prediction"error,"and"no"learning"takes"place."This"is"called"a"“fully"predicted”" reward"(Kamin,"1969)."" To"understand"why"prediction"error"is"so"crucial"to"reward,"consider"a"slot" machine"that"is"completely"predictable."If"the"outcome"of"paying"a"quarter"and" pulling"the"lever"on"any"given"trial"was"always"known,"then"playing"the"slots" would"feel"more"like"feeding"a"meter"where"you"park"bad"decisions"and"less"like" gambling."There"would"be"no"anticipatory"thrill"at"the"unlikely"(but"nonGzero)" prospect"that"you"hit"the"jackpot."There"would"still"be"would"be"a"reward"in"the" 7! formal,"algorithmic"sense,"but"because"the"reward"has"been"perfectly"predicted," it"has"lost"the"motivational"component"that"“keeps"us"coming"back"for"more”" (Schultz,"Dayan,"and"Montague,"1997)." Measuring#prediction#error#signals#in#the#brain# The"spiking"profile"of"dopamine"neurons"that"terminate"in"the"nucleus" accumbens"(nAcc)"is"best"characterized"in"terms"of"a"“prediction"error"signal”" (Schultz,"Dayan,"and"Montague,"1997)."There"are,"broadlyGspeaking,"two"modes" of"activity"that"mesolimbic"dopamine"neurons"use"to"convey"prediction"error"(Fox," et"al.,"2004?"O’Doherty,"Hampton,"and"Kim,"2007)."Tonic"activity"refers"to"action" potentials"that"occur"at"low"frequency,"regular"intervals"while"an"organism"is"at" rest"or"performing"a"task."Phasic"activity"refers"to"concentrated"bursts"of"high" frequency"spikes"that"do"not"occur"at"regular"intervals."When"an"organism" receives"an"unanticipated"positive"reward,"or"a"reward"whose"magnitude"is"far" greater"than"expected"GG"in"sum,"any"event"for"which"there"is"a"positive"prediction" error"GG"dopamine"neurons"in"the"ventral"tegmental"area"(VTA)"exhibit"phasic" bursts"of"spike"output,"enervating"the"nAcc"with"dopamine."These"neurons"do"not" fire"action"potentials,"however,"in"response"to"fully"predicted"rewards"(even"if"the" magnitude"of"that"reward"is"very"high)."In"contexts"where"an"organism"has"a" highly"accurate"estimate"for"the"EV"of"its"actions"and"decisions,"there"is"not"likely" be"any"PE,"and"thus"little"phasic"activity"in"dopaminergic"reward"circuits." Conversely,"when"an"organism"receives"a"reward"with"less"actual"value"than"was" expected,"the"tonic"activity"of"nAcc"dopamine"neurons"ceases."Thus,"positive"PE" is"indexed"by"phasic"bursts"of"dopamine"transmission,"while"negative"PE"is" tracked"by"inhibition"of"tonic"dopaminergic"activity.# Using"modelGbased"fMRI,"researchers"have"been"able"to"describe"the" BOLD"signal"with"functionally"identical"computational"models"to"those"used"to" characterize"mesolimbic"dopamine"neurons"(Fox,"et"al.,"2004?"O’Doherty," Hampton,"and"Kim,"2007)."Although"a"conservative"approach"suggests"that"we" can"only"localize"the"basal"forebrain"component"of"this"activity"to"the"“ventral" 8! striatum”"with"BOLD"fMRI,"the"liberality"of"the"record"speaks"volumes,"as"a" Google"Scholar"search"for"“nucleus"accumbens"fMRI”"returns"over"20,000"hits"as" of"May"10,"2014."Issues"of"nomenclature"aside,"it"is"now"a"well"replicated"finding" that"brain’s"prediction"error"signal"can"be"measured"in"the"human"vS"and"medial" prefrontal"cortex,"as"well"as"mesencephalic"dopamine"neurons."In"fact,"neural" correlates"of"the"prediction"error"signal"have"more"recently"been"identified"all" over"the"brain"–"not"just"in"tasks"of"rewardGlearning,"but"also"in"perceptual"and" attentional"processes"as"well"(den"Ouden,"Kok,"and"deLange,"2012)." Neuroeconomics:(A(New(Science(of(Decision(Making( Convergent"findings"in"systems"neuroscience"and"behavioral"economics" have"prompted"leading"scholars"in"their"respective"fields"to"claim"that"the" relatively"young"field"of"“neuroeconomics”"represents"a"consilience"of"decision" making"and"the"brain"(Glimcher"and"Rustichini,"2004)."While"calling"it"a"unified" theory"of"human"behavior"is,"perhaps,"overstating"the"case,"neuroeconomics"has" dramatically"strengthened"both"conceptual"and"evidenceGbased"bridges"between" brain"and"behavior."This"interdisciplinary"approach"allows"neuroscientists"to" constrain"their"noisy"data"with"formally"defined"models,"while"providing" economists"with"the"ability"to"validate"and"refine"said"models"through"empirical" testing"G"not"only"at"the"microeconomic,"but"at"the"microscopic"level."As"its"name" might"suggest,"neuroeconomics"is"grounded"in"a"few"key"principles"inherited" from"the"disciplines"of"neuroscience"and"economics"(summarized"below,"as" informed"by"Montague"and"Berns,"2002,"among"others):" 1)" Mobile"organisms"have"limited"resources"in"terms"of"time"and"energy." 2)" Investment"of"these"resources"is"based"on"predictions"about"the" consequences"for"an"organism"associated"with"any"stimulus"or"behavior." 3)" To"assess"outcomes"and"update"predictions,"an"organism"needs"a" common"scale"that"represents"value"across"incomparable"domains"of" information." 9! 4)" Normative"models"of"valueGbased"decisionGmaking"can"be"used"to"test" formal"predictions"about"value"assignment"across"multiple"levels"of" analysis." The"first"principle"is"difficult"to"contest."Human"organisms"require"nutrients" in"order"to"stay"alive"and"mates"in"order"to"produce"viable"offspring."Rational" decisions"about"how"to"deploy"a"limited"supply"of"time"and"energy"are"based"on" predictions"of"future"outcomes"derived"from"prior"experience."While"an"organism" might"make"an"irrational"prediction"or"randomly"associate"unrelated"outcomes" with"potential"actions,"a"systematic"approach"for"generating"reliable"expectations" about"the"universe"based"on"the"outcomes"of"previous"decisions"is"central"to" adaptive"fitness."The"assumption"that"behavioral"decisions"necessitate"a" common"scale"for"value"appears"more"controversial,"but"the"mere"selection"of" any"one"response"compared"to"another"implies"a"subjective"preference"for"the" option"that"was"chosen."This"soGcalled"“revealed"preference”"indicates"that"the" organism"regards"its"choice"as"subjectively"“better”"than"the"alternative(s)."While" a"random"or"irrational"choice"in"isolation"may"thus"convey"an"erroneous" preference,"a"real"preference"will"be"evident"in"the"bias"exerted"over"repeated" decisionGmaking."It"is"likely"that"multiple"neural"systems"compute"value"at" different"levels"of"stimulus"complexity"(Rangel,"Camerer,"and"Montague,"2008)," but"all"valueGbased"choices"must"rely"on"an"ultimately"common"neural"scale."This" scale,"or"currency,"is"required"to"synthesize"information"across"qualitatively" distinct"domains"of"interoceptive"and"sensory"information"(Schultz,"Dayan,"and" Montague,"1997)."The"final"principle"is"more"akin"to"a"dataGdriven"observation" than"a"fundamental"assumption,"but"it"is"the"element"most"central"to"the" conscilience"of"brain"and"decision"touted"by"advocates"of"the"neuroeconomics" approach"(Glimcher"and"Rustichini,"2004)."The"introduction"of"normative" frameworks"allows"neuroscientists"to"simultaneously"constrain"noisy"data"with" reinforcement"learning"algorithms"that"describe"optimal"behavior"for"decision" problems"that"have"no"known"ideal"solution."The"crucial"component"of"the"class" of"models"known"as"prediction"valuation"models"is"the"reward"prediction"error" signal,"which"indexes"the"discrepancy"between"actual"rewards"and"expectations" 10! about"reward"outcomes."Rangel,"Camerer,"and"Montague"(2008)"have"presented" a"framework"for"the"neurobiology"of"value"based"decision"making"that"describes" the"basic"components"of"the"decision"process"(Figure(1),"and"proposes"three" distinct"valuation"systems"to"account"for"different"kinds"of"value"assignment" (Figure(2)."One"strength"of"this"framework"is"that"the"basic"computations"are" described"in"terms"of"psychological"phenomena,"but"are"also"organized"so"as"to" be"readily"computable"through"a"variety"of"models,"providing"researchers"with" the"tools"to"model"brain"and"behavior"at"multiple"levels"of"analysis." " " Figure(1."Biological"computations"underlying"valueGbased"decision"making."This" diagram"describes"the"information"processes"underlying"any"choice,"and"it"can" be"applied"to"describe"observed"behavior"and"neural"activity"in"the"formal"terms" of"a"broad"class"of"predictorGvaluation"models."Adapted"from"Rangel"et"al." (2008)."" 11! " ( Figure(2."Valuation"systems"for"brain"and"behavior."This"chart"describes" differences"in"the"behavioral,"formal,"and"psychological"phenomena"best" described"by"each"of"the"Pavlovian,"Habitual,"and"GoalGdirected"valuation" systems,"as"proposed"in"Rangel"et"al."(2008)." " " Contemporary"reinforcementGlearning"systems"descended"from"the" machine"learning"literature"involve"three"formal"components:"a"reward"function,"a" value"function,"and"a"“policy”"(Montague"and"Berns,"2002)."An"experiment" presents"decisionGmaking"organisms"(or"“agents”)"with"a"finite"number"of" possible"“states,”"which"is"limited"by"the"available"combinations"of"stimulusG response"contingencies."Each"state"is"associated"with"a"reward"–"a"scalar" quantity"that"indexes"“how"good”"the"current"state"is"for"the"organism,"right"now" (which"can"be"negative"in"the"event"that"the"state"is"“not"good”)."The"organism" can"select"actions"(e.g."stimulusGrelevant"motor"output)"to"transition"from"one" state"to"another."Here,"reward"is"likened"to"a"contextGdependent"assessment"of" immediate"consequences"for"an"organism,"whereas"value"describes"a"more" general,"longGterm"assessment"of"prospects"for"the"future"from"the"current"state" in"light"of"all"subsequent"states"and"domainGfree"estimates"of"the"associated" rewards"(Montague,"2007)."The"value"function"yields"an"estimate"that"indexes" “how"good”"a"state"is"for"the"organism,"considering"rewards"associated"with"the" immediate"state"as"well"as"possible"future"states"–"formally"equating"to"the"total# reward"an"agent"can"expect"from"the"current"state,"and"all"subsequent"states"in" 12! the"future."The"role"of"the"policy,"in"turn,"is"to"formally"relate"states"to"actions," defining"the"probability"that"any"action"results"in"a"subsequent"state."" 13! ( CHAPTER(II" MOTIVATION(FOR(THE(CURRENT(STUDY" ( Value(as(the(Link(between(Self(and(Reward( The"main"difference"between"valueGbased"decision"making"frameworks"for" the"study"of"rewardGrelated"processes"from"the"approach"of"the"animal"behavior" tradition"is"a"central"focus"on"value,"rather"than"reward."The"experience"of" reward"occurs"in"an"immediate"temporal"context."Value,"on"the"other"hand,"is" defined"by"expectations"an"organism"has"about"consequences"that"have"not"yet" transpired."For"this"reason,"the#assignment#of#value#depends#on#an#organism’s# ability#to#represent#itself#in#the#future,"and"thus"we"return"to"the"self."" As"summarized"in"Chapter"I,"activity"in"cortical"midline"structures"has"been" repeatedly"implicated"in"selfGevaluation"across"multiple"domains"(e.g.,"relevance," similarity,"closeness)."The"literature"consistently"reflects"the"involvement"of" mPFC"and"pgACC"in"selfGreferential"processes,"and"it"is"relatively"safe"to" assume"that"cortical"midline"structures"are"involved"in"psychological"processes"of" self"at"the"implementation"level."Most"often,"the"paradigms"employed"would" suggest"that"the"problem"being"solved"at"the"process"level"is"a"binary"“me”" versus"“not"me”"judgment"(although"it"should"be"noted"that"the"actual"information" processing"problem"and"the"ostensible"“problem”"suggested"by"task"instructions" may"widely"diverge)." Reports"that"activity"in"mPFC"differentiates"self"and"close"others"(e.g.," Heatherton"et"al.,"2006)"imply"that"a"straightforward"representation"of"“internal"to" the"organism”"vs."“external"to"the"organism”"might"biologically"differentiate"self" from"nonGself."However,"mPFC"also"computes"qualitatively"different"kinds" information"about"the"self"(e.g.,"Krienen"et"al.,"2010,"Moore"et"al.,"2014),"which" suggests"that"an"organismal"judgment"of"internal/external"may"be"insufficient"for" abstract"selfGevaluation"that"integrates"information"across"distinct"domains"(e.g.," 14! group"identity,"selfGrelevance,"selfGsimilarity)."While"it"is"certainly"possible"that" such"an"algorithm"might"ultimately"return"a"simple"“me”"versus"“not"me”" distinction,"it"seems"more"likely"that"the"richly"elaborated"nature"of"selfGreferential" stimuli"depends"on"fineGgrained"computational"processes.# Compelling"empirical"evidence"for"the"relationship"between"self"and" reward"comes"from"a"suite"of"experiments"centered"on"the"intrinsic"reward" associated"with"selfGdisclosure"(Tamir"and"Mitchell,"2012)."Using"fMRI,"the" authors"showed"that"selfGreferential"stimuli"elicited"stronger"responses"in"the"vS," vmPFC,"and"ventral"tegmental"area"(VTA)"compared"to"otherGspecific"or"nonG social"stimuli,"indicating"that"selfGdisclosure"is"associated"with"activity"in"the" neural"structures"associated"with"value"computation"(Batra,"Kable,"and"Glimcher" 2013)"This"finding"was"complemented"by"behavioral"experiments"showing"that" participants"were"willing"to"forgo"monetary"rewards"in"order"to"share"information" about"themselves,"based"on"the"computation"of"a"point"of"subjective"equivalence" (PSE)"or"dollar"amount"at"which"participants"would"electively"selfGdisclose" despite"financial"loss."Together,"these"studies"demonstrated"that"people"are" motivated"to"share"information"about"the"self"with"others,"and"GG"given"similar" patterns"of"rewardGrelated"BOLD"signal"for"selfGevaluations"versus"nonGsocial" evaluations"GG"that"selfGreferential"cognition"is,"itself,"rewarding."" The"study"of"reward"presents"a"nearly"identical"problem"of"evaluating" qualitatively"distinct"stimuli,"internal"states,"and"behaviors,"and"wellGreplicated" findings"point"to"neurons"in"ventromedial"prefrontal"cortex"as"the"biological" substrate"for"the"common"currency"of"subjective"value"(Louie"and"Glimcher," 2012),"a"finding"reflected"in"the"human"neuroimaging"literature,"albeit"with"more" coarse"resolution"(Bartra,"McGuire,"and"Kable,"2013)."The"opinions"of"others"can" modulate"value"computation"in"both"vS"and"vmPFC,"and"this"influence"on" subjective"value"in"the"brain"continues"for"at"least"half"an"hour"after"exposure"to" social"information"(Zaki,"Schirmer,"and"Mitchell,"2011)."Subsequent"research" demonstrated"that"the"computation"of"value"in"vmPFC"can"also"be"regarded"as" “personGinvariant”"(i.e.,"does"not"differ"after"controlling"for"the"relative"value" 15! individuals"place"on"their"own"and"others’"gains?"Zaki,"Lopez,"and"Mitchell,"2014)." This"means"that"the"common"neural"currency"of"subjective"value"is"computed"not" only"independently"of"reward"receipt,"but"of"reward"recipient." The"neural"responses"elicited"by"tasks"that"combine"elements"of"selfG relevance"and"value"computation"look"similar"to"what"we"would"expect,"given" that"reports"from"independent"investigations"of"either"process"routinely"implicate" vS"and"vmPFC."Since"the"psychological"processes"cannot"be"disentangled," however,"it"is"possible"that"the"observed"patterns"of"activity"are"entirely"driven"by" self"or"value."In"a"paradigm"specifically"designed"to"compare"processes"of"self" and"reward,"a"conjunction"across"contrasts"indexing"high"versus"low"personal" relevance"and"positive"versus"negative"reward"outcomes"revealed"activity"in"both" pgACC"and"vS,"while"a"direct"comparison"of"self"and"reward"instead"elicited" activity"in"the"insulae"and"midGcingulate"(Enzi"et"al.,"2009)."A"strict" neuroeconomist"would"likely"refrain"from"regarding"these"results"as"evidence"that" common"psychological"mechanism"underlies"selfGrelevance"and"value" computation"per"se,"as"no"computation"of"value"was"not"described"in"terms"of"a" formal"model"or"isolated"from"other"decision"components."To"infer"that"one"or" more"common"processes"underlie"selfGrelevance"and"rewardGrelated"processing" more"generally,"however,"is"not"unreasonable." In"a"theoretical"perspective"on"self"and"reward,"Northoff"and"Hayes"(2011)" proposed"that"the"assignment"of"personal"relevance"is"actually"a"value" computation."If"a"stimulus"comes"into"the"sensory"awareness"of"an"organism,"the" assessment"of"relevance"to"the"self"begins"well"before"the"stimulus"reaches"the" threshold"of"conscious"awareness,"and"that"it"is"value"computation"and"the" assignment"of"affect"that"determine"whether"or"not"any"stimulus"is"regarded"as" personally"relevant."SelfGreferential"cognition,"however,"is"not"just"the"logical" extension"of"selfGrelevance"(Figure(3)." 16! " " Figure(3."SelfGreference,"personal"relevance,"and"value"assignment."The" yGaxis"represents"stimulus"complexity,"while"the"xGaxis"represents"time."As"a" stimulus"is"perceived"initially,"Pavlovian"reflexes"control"movement"that"orients" the"agent"toward"the"auditory"stimulus."As"the"value"and"affect"associated"with" the"stimulus"are"compared,"an"assessment"of"personal"relevance"is"applied."A" stimulus"like"the"snake"has"high"relevance"for"someone"standing"behind"the" snake,"and"the"Habitual"Value"System"most"likely"has"instilled"a"general" disinclination"toward"places"where"snakes"might"be"likely"to"appear."For"the" snake"to"be"selfGreferential,"it"must"enter"conscious"awareness."If"the"general" disinclination"toward"snakes"can"be"overcome"through"use"of"the"Goal"Directed" Value"System,"the"agent"can"maintain"control"over"an"inclination"to"run"away," and"instead"view"the"snake"as"a"potential"food"source." " " Although"“relevance”"is"a"somewhat"arbitrarily"selected"label"for"the" psychological"process"driving"observed"differences"in"mPFC"activity,"it"is"a" strategic"semantic"choice"for"a"process"that"has"been"alternatively"referred"to"the" literature"as"distance"from"the"self,"personal"significance,"personal"involvement," selfGrelevance,"selfGrelatedness,"or"selfGspecificity"(Abraham,"2013)."“Relevance”" is"the"most"unique"and"consistently"applied"term"in"the"class"of"twists"on"the" theme"that"generally"operationalizing"the"same"concept"(although"there"are" occasional"inconsistencies),"save"for"one:"selfGreference."The"factor"that" distinguishes"selfGreference"from"selfGrelevance"(or"its"aliases)"is"that"selfG 17! referential"stimuli"require"explicit"awareness"of"the"objective,"contentGbased"self." Because"all"stimuli"involve"the"processGbased,"subjective"self"to"some"extent,"we" cannot"modulate"its"presence"without"pharmacological"or"neural"perturbation."We" likewise"cannot"ask"people"to"control"an"implicit"or"spontaneous"assignment"of" selfGrelevance"or"selfGreference"judgment,"especially"for"social"stimuli" (Mussweiler,"2003?"Mussweiler,"Rüter,"and"Epstude,"2004)."As"Abraham"(2013)" acknowledges,"we"cannot"control"implicit"aspects"of"selfGrelevance"or"selfG reference,"but"her"recommendation"that"explicitly"selfGreferential"cognition"be" excluded"from"future"investigations"does"not"seem"like"an"ideal"way"to"proceed," given"that"social"stimuli"are"equally"likely"to"spontaneously"evoke"implicit" reference"to"the"self"(Mussweiler,"2003?"Mussweiler,"Rüter,"and"Epstude,"2004)." Returning"to"the"opening"quote"from"Chapter"I"of"this"dissertation,"in" addition"to"these"thoughts,"William"James"also"claimed"that"each"person"has"“as" many"different"social"selves"as"there"are"distinct"groups"of"persons"about"whose" opinion"he"cares”"(p."294)"and"that"the"social"self"“ranks"higher"than"the"material" self”"(p."314)."He"also"suggested"that"the"number"of"social"selves"an"individual" has"is"determined"by"the"assignment"of"value"to"the"opinions"of"others,"and"that" various"kinds"of"selves"are"likewise"compared"against"each"other"via"evaluative" judgments."Finally,"as"noted"earlier,"James"took"strongest"interest"in"the"contentG based"aspects"of"the"future"social"selves"we"may"become"(p."191)."" Collectively,"these"observations"from"James"hint"at"a"novel"experimental" approach"for"testing"the"hypothesis"that"an"individual’s"multiple"selves"are" distinctly"represented"in"the"brain."Through"the"use"of"prospective"social"context" (i.e.,"answering"binary"questions"about"the"self"that"will"later"be"shared"with"a" friend"or"parent"via"email),"we"can"test"whether"private"evaluations"of"the"self"are" represented"differently"in"the"brain"from"decisions"about"potential"social"selves," and"whether"the"prospective"contexts"of"sharing"with"a"friend"and"sharing"with"a" parent"can"be"likewise"differentiated"at"the"neural"level."Tamir"and"Mitchell’s" (2012)"demonstration"that"selfGdisclosure"is"intrinsically"rewarding"can"thus"be" extended"in"two"ways."First,"because"prospective"disclosures"require"allows"us" 18! asses"the"longGterm"value"in"social"sharing,"rather"than"the"fleeting,"“risky"thrill"of" selfGdisclosure”"(Dahl,"2008)."Second,"in"addition"to"differentiating"self" evaluations"in"a"private"context"from"prospectively"social"ones,"comparing" disclosures"to"parents"and"friends"can"test"the"existence"of"distinct"neural" representations"of"multiple"social"selves"as"well"as"the"“potential"social"Me.”"" Stated(Goals" The"overarching"goal"of"this"dissertation"is"to"demonstrate"the"effects"of" prospective"social"context"on"the"neural"correlates"of"personal"relevance."The" first"of"the"three"fMRI"experiments"described"here"aims"to"distinguish"selfG referential"from"nonGselfGreferential"evaluations"in"cortical"midline"structures" (CMS),"a"set"of"regions"routinely"implicated"in"stimuli"pertaining"to"the"self" (Denny"et"al.,"2012)."The"second"experiment"is"designed"to"characterize"the" neural"processes"associated"with"probabilistic"decision"making"in"terms"of"a" formally"defined"neural"network"model."In"the"second"experiment,"the"reward" prediction"error"signal"(the"crucial"component"that"drives"reinforcementGlearning" algorithms)"is"expected"to"correlated"with"activity"in"ventral"striatal"(vS)"BOLD" signal,"a"proposed"index"of"the"dopaminergic"prediction"error"signal"computed"by" midbrain"dopamine"neurons"(Schultz,"Dayan,"and"Montague,"1997?"Fox"et"al.," 2004)."By"assessing"the"results"from"these"first"two"tasks"in"conjunction,"I"aim"to" demonstrate"functional"neural"overlap"in"independent"tasks"of"self"evaluation"and" value"based"decision"making"GG"replicating"Enzi"and"colleagues’"(2009)"finding" that"personal"relevance"and"reward"outcome"elicit"overlapping"patterns"of"BOLD" response."I"propose"to"extend"their"hypothesis"by"demonstrating"that"reward" prediction"error,"a"more"precisely"defined"and"meaningful"analog"of"reward"signal" in"the"brain,"shares"a"common"neural"substrate"with"personal"relevance"across" independent"tasks." The"third"experiment"will"address"the"primary"question"of"interest:"Does" prospective"social"context"modulate"the"neural"representation"of"self?"In"this" experiment,"participants"performed"trivial"selfGevaluations"in"either"a"private" 19! context"or"a"prospectively"social"context"(i.e."with"a"parent"or"friend"who"would"be" informed"of"their"answers"via"email)"in"order"to"elicit"the"effects"of"social"influence" on"selfGreferential"cognition"in"a"physically"isolated"context."This"experiment" demonstrates"that"the"neural"correlates"of"selfGevaluation"differentiate"between" private"and"potentially"social"aspects"of"the"self."In"addition"to"providing"the"first" empirical"evidence"for"potential"social"selves"in"the"brain,"this"dissertation" provides"an"empirically"tested"and"metaGanalytically"validated"paradigm"for" isolating"neural"activity"associated"with"selfGreferential"cognition." Predictions( " I"predict"the"contrast"of"self"versus"change"(Experiment"1)"will"elicit" stronger"responses"in"the"ventral"striatum"(vS)"and"medial"prefrontal"cortex" (mPFC),"to"include"the"perigenual"aspect"of"anterior"cingulate"cortex"(pgACC)." The"extent"to"which"personal"relevance"can"be"inferred"from"this"contrast"is" contingent"on"the"assumption"that"the"control"condition,"in"which"participants" were"explicitly"instructed"not"to"answer"the"question"about"themselves" personally,"can"be"fairly"regarded"as"a"subtractive"means"of"indexing"personal" relevance."This"assumption,"however,"has"considerable"empirical"precedent,"and" is"the"basis"for"much"of"our"collective"understanding"of"selfGrelevant"processing." Additional"support"for"this"inference"will"come"in"the"form"of"a"nonGexploratory," formal"reverse"inference"of"the"contrast,"self"versus"change,"in"order"to"index"the" extent"to"which"the"reported"neuroimaging"literature"reflects"correlations"with" results"from"conceptual"similar"topics"of"interest"(e.g.,"“self,”"“autobiographical,”" “selfGreferential”).""""" In"Experiment"2,"I"predict"that"reward"prediction"error,"as"calculated" formally"in"terms"of"the"difference"between"reward"and"expected"value"on"each" trial,"will"correlate"with"BOLD"signal"in"the"bilateral"vS"and"vmPFC."BOLD"signal" in"human"vS"has"been"repeatedly"link"mapped"to"the"dopaminergic"prediction" error"signal"observed"at"the"single"unit"level"(Fox"et"al.,"2004),"and"the"extent"to" which"behaviorally"derived"reward"prediction"error"parameter"captures"the"vS" and"vmPFC"responses"to"reward"outcome"events"should"provide"sufficient" 20! evidence"of"neural"computation"of"prediction"error"signal"to"substantiate"an" influence"about"the"brain’s"prediction"error"signal."Although"the"anticipated"result" has"been"roundly"replicated,"and,"like"Experiment"1,"would"not"represent"a"novel" contribution"to"the"field"of"social"neuroscience"taken"purely"in"its"own"context,"the" statistical"results"concerning"reward"prediction"error"and"personal"relevance"will" be"conjointly"tested"to"assess"the"neural"overlap"of"self"and"reward."" I"predict"independent"tasks"of"personal"relevance"(Experiment"1)"and" valueGbased"decision"making"(Experiment"2)"will"elicit"shared"neural"substrates" in"the"pgACC"and"vS"as"demonstrated"by"Enzi"et"al."(2009),"and"that"this"activity" will"be"supplemented"by"mutual"activity"in"the"mPFC"more"broadly."The" anticipated"results"constitute"grounds"for"an"inference"on"the"mutually"implicated" neural"correlates"of"selfGrelevance"and"valueGbased"decision"components"that" will"subsequently"be"interrogated"in"Experiment"3." In"Experiment"3,"if"participants"behave"like"rational"economic"agents,"and" choose"the"option"associated"with"more"gold"coins"whenever"possible,"then," because"the"total"value"choices"is"balanced"across"conditions,"any"differences"in" gold"coins"earned"should"indicate"a"subjective"preference"for"the"disclosure" condition"associated"with"more"gold"coins"(owing"to"more"frequent"selection" when"the"value"of"each"option"was"equivalent)."If"we"control"for"the"monetary" outcome"associated"with"each"trial,"then"the"neural"activity"in"functionally" localized"regions"of"interest"associated"with"personal"relevance"and"valueGbased" decision"making"can"be"reasonably"assumed"to"index"the"neural"correlates"of" subjective"value"associated"with"that"disclosure"event." The"enhanced"precision"that"contrasting"exclusively"selfGreferential" stimulus"categories"against"each"other,"coupled"with"a"targeted"search"space" and"quantitatively"differentiable"indices"of"fiscal"value"provide"relatively"robust" support"for"subsequent"inferences"about"the"representation"of"personal" relevance"in"terms"of"value"assignment." 21! It"should"be"noted"that"while"whole"brain"analyses"will"be"conducted"as"a" matter"of"course,"the"most"relevant"tests"are"those"in"the"functionally"defined" regions"of"interest,"which"will"likewise"be"interrogated"in"a"similar"manner." However,"assuming"that"the"anticipated"regions"of"interest"are"not"evident"in" conjunction"analysis,"additional"results"will"be"interrogated"from"anatomically" defined"regions"appropriate"for"the"vS,"vmPFC,"and"pgACC."If"there"is"a"main" effect"of"prospective"social"context"on"vS"or"CMS"BOLD"signal,"then"this"is" evidence"that"prospective"social"context"modulates"the"neural"representation"of" self."However,"if"there"is"no"omnibus"difference,"I"predict"that"comparing"sharing" a"fact,"collapsed"across"parent"and"friend,"should"be"associated"with"stronger" BOLD"signal"than"keeping"a"fact"private."I"specifically"predict"that"disclosing"to" friends"should"be"associated"with"the"strongest"BOLD"signal,"followed"by" disclosing"to"parents,"with"the"weakest"vS"and"vmPFC"bold"associated"with" keeping"facts"private."Barring"a"linear"pattern,"I"predict"that"prospective" disclosure"contexts"will,"collectively,"elicit"stronger"vS"and"vmPFC"bold"signal" compared"to"private"disclosures,"This"should"serve"as"a"neural"index"of"the"value" associated"with"prospective"disclosure,"extending"findings"concerning"the" immediate"reward"associated"with"disclosures"in"the"present."If"vS"and"vmPFC" BOLD"signal"can"be"reliably"dissociated"across"disclosures"to"parents"and"to" friends,"then"this"should"afford"the"inference"that"the"social"selves"elicited"by"the" prospective"disclosure"context"are"differently"valued,"which"should"represent"an" entirely"novel"contribution." 22! " CHAPTER(III" METHODS( Participants( Participants"were"recruited"via"fliers"posted"around"campus"and"screened" for"eligibility"in"a"manner"approved"by"the"Institutional"Review"Board"at"the" University"of"Oregon."Two"subjects"exhibited"neurological"abnormalities"profound" enough"to"be"evident"in"the"raw"functional"images"at"the"time"of"acquisition,"and" were"thus"excluded"from"further"analysis,"resulting"in"a"sample"consisting"of"25" rightGhanded,"firstGyear"college"students"(11"women?"age"M"="19.10,"SD"="0.36" years)"for"whom"neuroimaging"and"behavioral"data"were"collected"and"analyzed." Prior"to"scanning,"participants"were"informed"that"one"of"the"neuroimaging" experiments"involved"answering"questions"about"oneself"in"private"or"social" contexts,"and"were"asked"to"choose"a"genderGmatched"friend"that"they"had"met" since"coming"to"college"as"well"as"a"parent"of"their"preference"with"whom"they" felt"comfortable"sharing"trivial,"yet"personal"information"about"the"self"via"email." The"differential"self"disclosure"(DSD),"probabilistic"decision"making"(PDM),"and" self"versus"change"(SVC)"tasks"were"described"to"subjects"as"the"“sharing"task,”" “alien"identification"task,”"and"“self"or"change"task,”"respectively."Participants" practiced"all"three"tasks"in"a"scanner"simulator"until"they"were"capable"of" providing"timely,"on"task"responses"while"refraining"from"making"large"or"sudden" movements"(as"assessed"by"experimenter"on"the"basis"of"visual"inspection).( Procedures" Experiment#1:#Self#versus#change#paradigm#" In"the"self"versus"change"task,"participants"were"shown"a"series"of"48"trait" adjectives,"each"presented"for"3.5s"and"accompanied"by"an"icon"indicating" instruction"condition"(i.e.,"“Describes"me?”"or"“Can"it"change?”)"and"icons" prompting"“yes”"or"“no”"button"presses"(Figure(4)."TwentyGfour"blocks"consisting" 23! of"4"trials"each"were"presented,"each"preceded"by"a"3.5s"presentation"of"the" relevant"icon"and"text"reminding"subjects"of"the"associated"instruction." Presentation"of"each"trait"adjective"was"jittered"by"0.47s"G"1.74s,"during"which"the" conditionGrelevant"icon"remained"on"screen."The"start"of"each"new"block"was" preceded"by"a"blank"screen"presented"for"3.97s"G"23.88s."An"optimized" presentation"sequence"was"determined"through"use"of"a"genetic"algorithm" designed"to"obtain"maximal"contrast"detection"between"the"two"conditions"of" interest,"as"well"as"between"adjectives"describing"“prosocial”"or"“antisocial”" popularity"traits,"not"further"discussed"here"(Kao,"Mandal,"Lazar,"and"Stufken," 2009)."Each"of"48"trait"adjectives"was"presented"once"per"condition"(96"total" trials)."Participants"completed"two"functional"runs,"each"of"which"lasted"6m"18s." " " ( Figure(4."Self"versus"change"(SVC)"paradigm"used"to"assess"selfGreferrential" processes"in"Experiment"1."Participants"are"presented"with"a"trait"adjective"and" an"icon"that"instructs"them"to"evaluate"the"trait"adjective"in"terms"of"the"self"(i.e.," ‘true"about"me?’)"or"malleability"(i.e.,"can"it"change?’)."Subsequent"yes"or"no" responses"are"collected"via"left"or"right"button"press,"respectively." " 24! " Experiment#2:#Probabilistic#decision#making#paradigm## In"the"“alien"identification"task”"(adapted"from"Cohen"et"al.,"2010)," participants"performed"a"probabilistic"decision"making"while"undergoing"BOLD" fMRI."On"each"5s"trial"(range"3.9s"G"7.75s),"participants"saw"an"abstract," computer"generated"fractal"stimulus"that"they"were"told"represented"an"alien" organism"(Figure(5)."They"were"asked"to"classify"the"alien"as"a"member"of"the" extraGterrestrial"species"“Lux”"or"“Raz”."Participants"were"told"that"the"task"was" probabilistic"in"nature,"and"additionally"instructed"that"because"our"ability"to" visually"identify"these"aliens"is"not"perfect,"sometimes"an"alien"that"looks"like"one" species"actually"belongs"to"the"other,"and"therefore"to"expect"that"feedback"may" not"be"consistent"for"each"stimulus."Stimuli"were"presented"for"an"average"of"3s" (jittered"between"2.5s"and"5s),"during"which"time"participants"had"to"indicate" whether"the"alien"was"a"Lux"or"a"Raz"via"left"or"right"handed"button"press," respectively."After"participant"response,"feedback"was"presented"for"1.25s," consisting"of"the"intended"response"(i.e.,"which"species"the"alien"belongs"to)"as" well"as"a"reward"of"gold"coins."The"reward"was"either"2"or"4"gold"coins,"and"after" the"task"participants"were"paid"1.647"cents"for"every"gold"coin"amassed"across" experiments."The"intertrial"interval"was"0.75s"on"average"(range"0.15s"G"1.5s)." The"trial"order"and"length"were"optimized"for"separating"the"neural" response"to"stimuli"from"the"neural"response"to"feedback,"and"144"trials"were" spread"over"two"306"second"runs."There"were"six"distinct"alien"stimuli,"two"of" which"were"predictably"Lux"(83%),"two"predictably"Raz"(83%),"and"two"of"which" were"random"(50%)."Across"each"of"the"three"stimulus"types"(predictable"Lux," predictable"Raz,"and"random),"one"stimulus"was"associated"with"a"large"reward" of"four"coins"and"one"with"a"small"reward"of"two"coins."Participants"completed" two"functional"runs,"each"of"which"lasted"6m"3s." " 25! " ( Figure(5."Probabilistic"decision"making"paradigm"used"to"assess"rewardGrelated" processes"in"Experiment"2."Participants"are"presented"with"a"stimulus"on"each" trial,"guess"as"to"its"‘alien"identity’"via"left"or"right"button"press,"and"then"receive" feedback"about"the"correctness"of"their"response"and"the"associated"reward."The" decision"value"(DV),"choice"value"(CV),"and"reward"prediction"error"(RPE)" components"are"described"at"each"phase"of"the"experiment"as"they"relate"to" the"associated"biological"computations."It"should"be"noted"that"computations" associated"with"learning"impact"all"other"depicted"stages"of"valueGbased" decision"making."" # Experiment#3:#Differential#self9disclosure#paradigm## In"the"differential"self"disclosure"task,"participants"made"binary"choices" between"pairs"of"three"possible"disclosure"audiences:"the"self"(“keep"it"private”)," a"friend"(“share"with"friend”)"or"a"parent"(“share"with"parent”),"with"the"social" targets"selected"by"the"participant"upon"enrolling"in"the"study."Each"choice"was" associated"with"zero"to"four"gold"coins,"(paid"out"at"a"rate"of"1.647"cents"per"coin" upon"completion"of"the"experimental"session)."On"each"trial,"after"choosing"their" preferred"disclosure"target"/"gold"coin"option"via"left"hand"or"right"hand"button" press,"participants"were"presented"with"a"trivial"statement"about"the"self"to"which" they"responded"“yes”"or"“no”"via"left"or"right"hand"button"press,"respectively" 26! (Figure(6)."Importantly,"participants"were"asked"to"decide"on"the"disclosure" audience"before"seeing"each"fact,"in"order"to"rule"out"any"influence"of"disclosure" content"on"chosen"audience."The"facts"participants"disclosed"consisted"of"trivial" personal"statements"(e.g.,"“I"want"to"learn"to"surf,”"“I"hate"being"sick,”"or"“I"always" carry"chapstick”)."Participants"made"an"audience"choice"and"a"selfGdisclosure" statement"on"each"of"90"trials,"with"presentation"sequence"optimized"to"obtain" maximal"contrast"detection"between"pairs"of"disclosure"targets"and"numbers"of" gold"coins"associated"with"each"choice."Trials"lasted"an"average"of"8.5s"(range" 8.2s"G"8.8s)"and"were"separated"by"presentation"of"a"blank"screen"(M"="1.28s," range"0.5s"G9.78s."The"choice"and"disclosure"phases"of"each"trial"were" separated"by"an"average"of"0.5s,"jittered"about"0.3s"G"0.7s."Participants" completed"two"functional"runs,"each"of"which"lasted"7m"30s." " " Figure(6."Differential"selfGdisclosure"(DSD)"paradigm"used"to"explore"differences" in"neural"correlates"of"personal"relevance"across"prospectively"social"or" immediately"private"contexts"in"Experiment"3."Participants"first"decide"to"whom" they"will"disclose"the"upcoming"fact"based"on"personal"preference"and" associated"gold"coins."Next,"participants"evaluate"the"applicability"of"trivial"yes"or" no"statements"about"the"self"in"a"prospective"social"(or"immediate"private)" disclosure"context." ( 27! Neuroimaging(Data(Acquisition(and(Image(Processing( All"data"were"acquired"on"a"3T"Siemens"Skyra"MRI"scanner"at"the"Robert" and"Beverly"Lewis"Center"for"Neuroimaging"at"the"University"of"Oregon," including"T1Gweighted"(MPGRAGE)"anatomical"images"as"well"as"six"functional" runs"(two"per"task)"of"blood"oxygenGlevel"dependent,"echoGplanar"images" (BOLDGEPI)"using"GRAPPA"parallel"accession"with"an"acceleration"factor"of"2" and"a"multiGband"acceleration"factor"of"3."It"bears"noting"that"multiGband"slice" acquisition"and"parallel"imaging"techniques"enable"drastic"increases"in"the" temporal"or"spatial"resolution"of"functional"images."Because"the"nature"of"the" BOLD"response"signal"is"the"rate"limiting"step"insofar"as"temporal"resolution,"we" kept"the"acquisition"time"at"a"relatively"standard"2"seconds,"while"effectively" doubling"the"number"of"slices"and"increasing"number"of"voxels"per"slice"in"order" to"obtain"2mm"x"2mm"x"2mm"isotropic"voxels."Although"functional"neuroimaging" results"are"often"artificially"resampled"to"this"resolution"(which"introduces"the" potentially"confounding"effects"of"interpolation),"whole"brain"coverage"at"this" resolution"for"acquired"BOLDGEPI"data"is"a"relatively"recent"innovation."Additional" sequence"parameters:"TR"="2000ms,"TE"="30ms,"field"of"view"="200mm,"matrix" size=100x100),"72"oblique"slices,"slice"thickness"="2mm,"flip"angle"="90o." DICOM"images"were"converted"to"NIfTI"format"via"MRIConvert" (http://lcni.uoregon.edu/~jolinda/MRIConvert/)"and"nonGbrain"tissue"was"removed" using"FSL’s"Brain"Extraction"Tool"(Smith,"2002)."All"subsequent"image" processing"was"carried"out"in"SPM12."For"each"participant,"all"functional" volumes"were"realigned"to"the"first"image"in"the"series."The"effects"of" translational"and"rotational"motion"on"signal"to"noise"ratio"were"calculated"using" the"art"toolkit"in"SPM12"and"a"nuisance"regressor"was"constructed"for"any" volume"with"a"displacement"of"more"than"2mm"or"a"change"in"global"signal" intensity"of"more"than"nine"standard"deviations"above"the"mean"(as"compared"to" the"previous"image)."The"anatomical"image"was"then"placed"in"registration"with" the"realigned"functionals,"and"reorientation"parameters"were"manually"derived" and"applied"to"all"images"so"as"to"set"the"origin"above"and"behind"the"anterior" commissure."Anatomical"images"were"segmented"into"six"tissue"types"using"the" 28! unified"segmentation"approach"(Ashburner"and"Friston,"2005)."Deformations" fields"from"this"transformation"were"subsequently"used"to"warp"functional"images" into"a"standard"space"(MNIG152"ICBM"template)"at"2mm"isotropic"resolution." Finally,"functional"images"were"then"smoothed"with"a"4mm"(FWHM)"smoothing" kernel"and"concatenated"into"a"single"4D"timeGseries"for"each"of"the"three"tasks." It"should"be"pointed"out"that"the"high"resolution"of"warped"functional"volumes" does"not"presume"an"undue"specificity,"but"rather"precisely"reflects"the"resolution" at"which"images"were"sampled.( Data(Analysis( For"all"tasks,"condition"effects"were"estimated"in"SPM12"using"a"canonical" hemodynamic"response"function,"high"pass"filtering"(128s),"correction"for"serial" autocorrelation"(AR1),"and"a"subject"specific"explicit"mask."Masks"were" calculated"for"each"subject"by"intersecting"optimally"thresholded"mask"of"all" functional"images"(Ridgway"et"al.,"2009)"with"the"grey"matter"tissue"probability" map"from"unified"segmentation,"binarized"to"exclude"all"voxels"with"a"less"than" 1%"probability"of"being"grey"matter."It"should"be"noted"that"while"these"masks" exclude"a"small"number"of"inGbrain"voxels"(primarily"in"the"ventricles"and"large" white"matter"tracts),"they"are"not"stringent"“grey"matter"masks”"in"the"classical" sense,"and"they"contain"more"than"150,000"voxels"on"average."These"individual" subject"masks"were"averaged"(and"reGbinarized)"to"create"an"explicit"mask"for" use"in"group"level"analyses."In"order"to"appropriately"threshold"statistical"results," images"were"either"subjected"to"wholeGbrain"FWE"correction"in"SPM12"with"the" default"extent"threshold"of"k"≥"5"voxels,"or"else"the"appropriate"cluster"defining" threshold"to"obtain"an"FWEGcorrected"alpha"level"of"p"<"0.05"was"determined"for" each"SPM"using"corrclusth.m""(Nichols"2015,"http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/G statistics/staff/academicGresearch/nichols/scripts/spm).( Model#specification,#Experiment#1#(self#versus#change)( Condition"effects"for"self"(“Describes"me?”)"and"change"(“Can"it"change?”)" were"estimated"according"to"the"general"linear"model"in"SPM12."Reaction"time" 29! (RT)"on"each"trial"was"entered"into"the"model"as"the"duration"of"the"event"in" order"to"control"for"potential"discrepancies"in"BOLD"signal"due"to"differences"in" RT"both"within"and"across"conditions."Instruction"events"were"also"convolved" with"the"HRF"and"modeled"as"regressors"of"no"interest,"in"addition"to"any"trials" for"which"participants"failed"to"respond."Nuisance"regressors"were"appended"to" the"design"matrix"in"order"to"partial"out"variability"in"BOLD"signal"due"to" participant"motion."To"assess"population"level"effects,"voxelwise"statistical" parametric"maps"summarizing"the"contrast"between"self"and"change"trials"were" calculated"for"each"participant"and"then"entered"into"a"random"effects"(group" level)"one"sample"tGtest."( Model#specification,#Experiment#2#(probabilistic#decision#making)( All"behavioral"data"were"analyzed"in"MATLABGR2015a"(according"to"the" method"described"in"Cohen"et"al.,"2010)."For"each"subject,"decision"components" were"computed"using"a"fully"connected"neural"network"model"with"one"input" node"per"stimulus"and"two"output"nodes."Connection"weights"were"updated"after" each"trial"according"to"the"RescorlaGWagner"rule."A"learning"rate"(alpha),"which" ranged"from"0"to"1,"was"the"sole"free"parameter"in"this"model,"and"described"the" extent"to"which"individual"trials"modulated"the"association"between"stimuli"and" responses."The"decision"value"(DV)"of"the"presented"stimulus"was"updated"after" each"trial"by"function"of"the"participant’s"learning"rate"(alpha)"and"prediction"error" (PE)"on"that"trial:"# DV(n+1)"="DV(n)"+"(alpha)""+"PE(n)" Choice"value"(CV),"the"value"associated"with"the"participant’s"chosen" stimulus"category"(i.e.,"Lux"or"Raz)"was"updated"on"each"trial"with"the"above" equation,"while"decision"value"(DV)"was"calculated"as"the"sum"of"the"decision" values"relating"to"both"possible"outcomes"for"a"stimulus,"and"was"not"updated"on" a"per"trial"basis."Reward"prediction"error"(PE)"was"computed"as"the"difference" between"the"actual"observed"outcome"and"the"choice"value"on"each"trial." Condition"effects"for"stimulus,"response,"and"feedback"were"estimated"according" 30! to"the"general"linear"model"using"SPM12’s"canonical"hemodynamic"response" function,"high"pass"filtering"(128s),"correction"for"serial"autocorrelation"(AR1)," and"an"optimally"thresholded"explicit"mask"(Ridgway"et"al.,"2009).""Importantly," an"additional"parametric"modulator"was"convolved"with"the"hrf"for"each"event" type:"DV"at"stimulus"onset,"CV"at"response,"and"PE"at"feedback."The"duration"of" stimulus"events"(as"modulated"by"DV)"was"set"to"the"amount"of"time"between" stimulus"presentation"and"participant"response"(i.e.,"reaction"time),"duration"of"all" response"events"was"set"to"zero,"and"duration"of"all"feedback"events"was"1.25s." Bivariate"correlations"between"reaction"time"and"coins"earned"as"well"as"reaction" time"and"prediction"error"for"each"trial"were"assessed"for"each"subject,"and"no" significant"correlations"survived"correction"for"multiple"comparisons."Nuisance" regressors"were"appended"to"the"design"matrix"in"order"to"partial"out"variability"in" BOLD"signal"due"to"participant"motion."To"assess"population"level"effects," voxelwise"statistical"parametric"maps"summarizing"the"effects"of"the"parametric" modulators"(variability"explained"by"CV,"DV,"and"PE)"were"entered"into"in"1"x"3" repeated"measures"ANOVA,"assuming"nonGindependence"and"unequal"variance" across"conditions." Conjunction#across#Experiments#1#and#2## In"order"to"formally"assess"overlap"in"the"neural"substrates"associated" with"independent"tasks"of"selfG"and"rewardGrelated"processing,"the"linear"contrast" images"for"prediction"error"and"self">"change"from"each"subject’s"firstGlevel" models"were"entered"into"in"1"x"2"flexible"factorial"model,"with"one"regressor"for" PE,"one"for"self">"change,"and"an"additional"regressor"no"interest"for"each" subject,"assuming"nonGindependence"and"unequal"variance"across"conditions." Group"level"contrasts"for"self">"change"and"PE"error"were"then"tested"against"the" conjunction"null"hypothesis"that"either"or"both"the"effects"of"self"or"reward"are"null" at"each"voxel,"applying"a"height"threshold"of"p"<"0.005"and"an"extent"threshold"of"" p"<"0.05"(k"≥"135"voxels,"FWE"corrected"at"the"cluster"level)."It"should"be"noted" that"specification"of"this"model"(which"is"essentially"a"pairedGsamples"tGtest)"is"not" strictly"necessary"in"order"to"test"the"conjunction,"but"for"the"sake"of"consistency" 31! in"the"application"of"thresholds,"correction"for"nonGindependence"within"subjects," and"reporting"of"results,"linear"contrast"images"were"organized"in"this"fashion." Thresholded"clusters"from"the"conjunction"were"saved"as"binarized"masks"for" use"as"functionally"defined"regions"of"interest"(ROIs)"for"subsequent"analyses." Model#specification,#Experiment#3#(differential#self9disclosure)## Neural"activity"associated"with"self"disclosure"was"estimated"on"a"per"trial" basis"at"the"individual"subject"level"for"each"of"the"three"audiences"(self,"parent," and"friend)."In"order"to"control"for"variability"attributable"to"discrepancies"in"the" gold"coins"either"available"or"earned"on"each"trial,"each"event"type"was" parametrically"modulated"by"the"number"of"gold"coins"received."Choice"events" were"not"specified"in"the"model,"in"order"to"partially"control"for"activity"associated" with"perceptual"or"motor"processes"common"to"choice"and"disclosure"events,"as" well"as"to"strengthen"subsequent"inferences"based"on"simple"effects"of" disclosures"for"each"audience"condition"by"using"an"“active"implicit"baseline”" (which"is"not"strictly"ideal,"but"is"assuredly"preferable"to"contrasting"the"neural" activity"associated"with"any"meaningful"psychological"process"against"staring"at" a"fixation"cross)."Parameter"estimates"for"each"condition"were"extracted"from"the" functionally"defined"ROIs"via"the"SPM12"Volumes"utility."Summary"statistics"was" created"for"each"subject"by"interpolating"parameter"estimates"over"all"voxels"in" each"mask"with"a"3rd"degree"bGspline." ( Neuroinformatics(Approach( Background# The"nature"of"value"computation"is"an"active"area"of"research"in" psychology,"neuroscience,"economics,"and"computer"science,"but"as"traditional" disciplinary"boundaries"between"these"once"disparate"fields"continue"to"erode," experiments"that"simultaneously"address"multiple"levels"of"analysis"are"on"the" rise."Consequently,"comparing"and"synthesizing"findings"from"the"massive" datasets"that"ensue"poses"a"major"challenge."Distributed"efforts"to"facilitate"the" organization,"analysis,"and"sharing"of"these"data"have"given"rise"to"the" 32! burgeoning"movement"known"as"neuroinformatics"(Yarkoni,"Poldrack,"Van" Essen,"and"Wager,"2010)."Applying"techniques"from"neuroeconomics"to" experimental"design"and"data"analysis"coupled"with"the"use"of"neuroinformatics" tools"to"compare"and"contrast"findings"with"those"in"the"empirical"record" represents"a"powerful"approach"to"supplement"traditional,"contrastGdetectionG based"fMRI"with"formal"reverse"inference,"rather"than"the"brand"of"invalid,"postG hoc"conjecture"that"has,"unfortunately,"saddled"“reverse"inference”"with"the" connotation"of"an"aspersion"to"be"avoided"at"all"costs"(Poldrack,"2011)( The"typical"neuroimaging"experiment"involves"manipulating"a" psychological"variable"of"interest"and"localizing"the"effects"of"that"manipulation" on"neural"activity,"a"strategy"referred"to"as"forward"inference"(Henson,"2006)." Unfortunately,"the"tendency"to"observe"neural"activity"in"a"structure"and"reason" backwards,"assuming"that"the"psychological"constructs"being"tested"must"involve" cognitive"processes"frequently"associated"with"activity"in"that"structure,"is"a" pernicious"practice"known"as"“reverse"inference"error”"(Poldrack,"2006)."( Formalizing#reverse#inference#with#Neurosynth#and#Neurovault## Reverse"inference"errors"are"by"no"means"limited"to"neuroimaging" investigations,"but"fMRI"researchers"are"particularly"vigilant"against"them," especially"with"respect"to"anatomical"regions"that"are"implicated"across"a"wide" range"of"cognitive"tasks"(e.g.,"mPFC,"insula,"amygdala)."This"situation"is" unfortunate,"because"while"reverse"inference"error"(or"any"form"of"postGhoc" conjecture)"has"a"negative"impact"on"science"insofar"as"promoting"unsound" conclusions"and"neuroimaging"practices,"the"reverse"inference"baby"is"often"cast" out"with"the"erroneous"bathwater."Fortunately,"NeuroSynth,"a"platform"for"largeG scale"data"analyses"and"comparison"of"results"for"empirical"investigations" against"the"reported"neuroimaging"literature"studies,"allows"investigators"to" bolster"conclusions"and"generate"new"hypotheses"with"a"formal"mechanism"for" reverse"inference"(Yarkoni,"Poldrack,"Nichols,"Van"Essen,"and"Wager,"2011)." This"freelyGdistributed,"openGsource"tool"uses"automated,"textGbased"analysis"of" 33! over"10,000"fMRI"studies"to"generate"reverse"inference"maps"of"conceptually" relevant"terms"by"crossGindexing"frequently"occurring"words"in"neuroimaging" manuscripts"with"reported"MNIGcoordinates."While"a"forward"inference"map"is" essentially"a"demonstration"of"the"probability"of"activity"in"a"voxel"given"the" presence"of"a"conceptual"term"of"interest,"a"reverse"inference"map"indexes"the" probability"of"a"term"being"associated"with"the"brainGwide"pattern"of"neural" activity."" Although"the"peakGbased"metaGanalyses"that"can"be"carried"out"in" NeuroSynth"are"not"as"informative"as"imageGbased"metaGanalytic"approaches," obtaining"unthresholded"statistical"results"for"thousands"of"experiments"is" computationally"impractical,"as"well"as"being"a"major"pragmatic"challenge,"and" this"database"features"over"3000"relevant"terms"of"interest"(appearing"in"at"least" 20"articles)"distributed"over"10,000"empirical"reports."Another"neuroinformatics" tool"that"grew"out"of"NeuroSynth"is"called"NeuroVault:"a"public"repository"of" unthresholded"brain"activation"maps"(Gorgolewski"et"al.,"2015)."NeuroVault"aims" to"overcome"the"pitfalls"of"coordinate"based"metaGanalysis"by"allowing" researchers"to"upload"their"unthresholded"SPMs"(or"even"the"entire"groupGlevel" analysis)"for"the"purposes"of"easing"longGdistance"dataGsharing"and"G visualization,"as"well"as"facilitating"distributed,"collaborative,"openGsource" neuroimaging"investigations."Using"NeuroValut"and"NeuroSynth"in"tandem," researchers"can"upload"their"unthresholded"statistical"results"and"“decode”"them" against"the"NeuroSynth"database,"generating"a"list"of"the"most"closely"related" termGbased"reverse"inference"maps."While"it"is"important"that"these"tools"be"used" with"care,"as"it"is"still"entirely"possible"to"use"them"to"make"an"erroneous"reverse" inference,"the"use"of"decoding"approaches"to"supplement"(rather"than"replace)" results"based"on"wholeGbrain"analyses"and"a"priori"hypotheses"about"neural" structures"and"psychological"concepts"of"interest"is"a"powerful"tool"for" synthesizing"results"from"empirical"investigations"with"results"reported"in"the" literature."Neuroinformatics"perspectives"and"tools"enhance"our"collective"ability" to"compare"and"contrast"psychological"processes"and"neural"activity"that"may"be" elicited"across"different"kinds"of"experimental"paradigms"while"controlling"for"the" 34! base"rate"at"which"psychological"constructs"or"anatomical"structures"are"typically" reported"in"the"sorts"of"tasks"common"to"neuroimaging"experiments." 35! " CHAPTER(IV" RESULTS( ( Neuroimaging(Results,(Experiment(1((Self(Versus(Change)( Conducting"a"one"sample"tGtest"at"the"group"level"over"individual"subject" contrast"images"for"self">"change"reveals"robust"activity"in"both"anterior"and" posterior"cortical"midline"structures,"as"expected"(Figure(7,"Table(1)."A"solitary" supraGthreshold"cluster"dominates"the"entire"rostroGmedial"aspect"of"the"PFC," encompassing"more"than"4000"voxels"and"extending"from"the"the"posterior" ventral"striatum"to"the"frontal"pole,"including"large"portions"of"the"paracingulate" gyrus,"perigenual,"subgenual,"and"subcallosal"anterior"cingulate"cortices"(pACC," sgACC,"scACC)."To"attain"a"higher"degree"of"anatomical"specificity,"application" of"a"more"stringent"threshold"(brainGwide"FWE)"elucidates"two"distinct"clusters"in" the"mPFC:"an"87"voxel"cluster"immediately"anterior"to"the"genu"of"the"corpus" callosum"(pgACC?"MNI"peak"mm"[G6"36"4]),"and"a"98"voxel"cluster"in"the"anterior" aspect"of"the"paracingulate"gyrus"(MNI"peak"mm"[G6"52"12"]),"anterior"and"slightly" superior"to"the"first."The"cluster"of"activity"in"pgACC"is"quite"similar"to"that" described"for"the"interaction"between"ipseity"and"and"selfGsimilarity"in"Moore"et" al.,"2014,"and"this"region"specifically"has"been"routinely"implicated"in"selfGspecific" social"cognition"(Northoff"et"al.,"2006)."Recruitment"of"cortical"midline"structures" (CMS)"for"selfGreferential"processing"is"by"no"means"a"finding"without"theoretical" or"empirical"precedent,"as"scores"of"empirical"investigations"and"several"largeG scale"metaGanalyses"have"suggested"that"CMS"are"essential"to"the"brain’s" representation"of"self"(Northoff"et"al.,"2006?"Van"Der"Meer,"Costafreda,"Aleman," and"David,"2010b?"Van"Overwalle,"2009)."However,"the"profound"magnitude"and" extent"of"cortical"midline"BOLD"activity"in"these"data"not"only"underscores"the" robust"manner"in"which"the"current"results"replicate"consistent"findings"in"the" social"neuroscience"literature,"but"also"provides"a"powerful"analytical"tool"for" 36! further"decomposition"of"selfGrelevant"cognition"in"the"independent"task"of"selfG disclosure." " ( Figure(7."Group"level"(N"=25)"wholeGbrain"SPM"for"one"sample"tGtest"of"self" versus"change"contrast"at"individual"subject"level."Red"sphere"indicates"origin"at" MNI"coordinates"["x"="0,"y"="0,"z"="0"]"mm,"thresholded"for"display"at"p"<"0.05," (FWE"corrected"for"multiple"comparisons,"extent:"k"≥"138"voxels,"height:"t(1,24)"≥" 2.65)."For"precise"peak"and"cluster"statistics,"refer"to"Table"1." ( ( Table(1."Peak"MNI"statistics"for"wholeGbrain"contrast"of"self"versus"change" (Experiment"1)."All"reported"clusters"are"significant"at"p"<"0.05,"corrected"for" multiple"comparisons"at"via"FWE"height"and"extent"thresholds,"or"FWE"corrected" extent"threshold"of"at"least"138"contiguous"voxels"and"uncorrected"height" threshold"of"p"<"0.005." (( voxels( peak( MNI(coordinates( {mm}( Region( k( T" x( y( z( perigenual"anterior"cingulate"gyrus" 87" 10.73" G6" 10" G8" anterior"medial"prefrontal"cortex" 98" 10.28" G6" G48" 28" medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" 21" 8.71" G8" 48" G8" ventral"medial"prefrontal"cortex" 18" 8.53" G48" G68" G16" lateral"orbitofronal"cortex" 10" 7.59" 24" G54" G20" posterior"cingulate"gyrus" 5" 7.35" 8" G86" G10" Extent"&"height"thresholds""G#p#<"0.05"FWE# perigenual"anterior"cingulate"gyrus" 4209" 10.73" G6" 36" G4" medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" 1699" 8.71" G6" G64" 24" lateral"orbitofronal"cortex" 315" 7.59" 30" 14" G20" precentral"gyrus" 932" 6.80" 36" G22" 54" cerebellum" 374" 6.51" 16" G46" G20" temporal"fusiform"gyrus" 1065" 6.45" 40" G58" G16" amygdala" 194" 5.56" 30" G4" G24" lateral"occipital"cortex" 605" 5.29" 32" G86" 0" occipital"pole" 166" 5.15" 4" G16" 38" lateral"occipital"cortex" 228" 4.85" 42" G66" 12" 37! Extent"threshold""G#p#<""0.05,"FWE"(k"≥"138),"height"threshold""G#p#<"0.05"FDR# ( ( Neuroimaging(Results,(Experiment(2((Probabilistic(Decision(Making)( Participants"earned"an"average"of"$4.12"during"both"runs"of"the"RPE"task" (gold"coins:"(M"="250.48,"SD"="31.27),"receiving"more"coins"for"predictable" stimuli"(M"="2.00,"SD"="0.34)"than"random"ones"(M"="1.34,"SD"="0.21?"t(24)"=" 6.89,"p"<"0.001)."Reaction"times"also"differed"such"that"participants"responded" more"quickly"to"predictable"stimuli"(M"="1.09s,"SD"=0.26)"than"random"ones"(M"=" 1.20s,"SD"="0.26?"t(24)"="G3.73,"p"<"0.01)."Voxelwise"statistical"parametric"maps" summarizing"the"effects"of"the"parametric"modulators"(variability"explained"by" CV,"DV,"and"PE)"for"each"subject"were"entered"into"a"1"x"3"repeated"measures" ANOVA,"assuming"nonGindependence"and"unequal"variance"across"conditions." Linear"tGcontrasts"for"each"reward"component"of"interest"were"used"to"index" value"of"the"stimulus"(decision"value),"expected"value"of"the"participant’s"choice" (choice"value)"and"prediction"error"(PE)"independently"characterize"the"brain’s" response"to"reward"during"probabilistic"learning."At"the"stringent"statistical" thresholds"FWE"corrected"p"<"0.05"and"p"<"0.001"(height"and"extent," respectively?"applied"at"the"whole"brain"level),"the"test"of"prediction"error" (controlling"for"CV"and"DV)"revealed"robust"clusters"of"activity"in"the"left"and"right" ventral"striatum,"precisely"as"hypothesized"(Figure(8)."No"supraGthreshold" clusters"were"evident"for"decision"value,"and"choice"value"was"associated"only" with"activity"in"the"bilateral"occipital"poles."At"a"more"lenient"height"threshold," albeit"still"corrected"for"multiple"comparisons"at"an"equivalent"alpha"level"of"p"<" 0.05"FWE"(height"p"<"0.005"and"extent"≥"138"voxels),"choice"value"was" additionally"associated"with"activity"in"the"medial"prefrontal"cortex"and" precuneus,"and"well"as"motor"cortex"(Table(2)"–"this"is"unsurprising,"given"that" CV"modulates"the"only"event"in"which"participants"engage"in"button"pressing" activity."ValueGrelated"activity"in"cortical"midline"structures"is"assuredly"relevant" to"an"investigation"of"neural"similarities"between"self"and"reward,"but"because" nearly"identical"clusters"were"evident"for"prediction"error"at"this"threshold"(and" 38! because"the"paradigm"was"optimized"specifically"to"detect"prediction"error"signal," rather"than"expected"value)"activity"from"the"prediction"error"contrast"is"the"best" analog"of"“rewardGrelevant"processing”"at"the"group"level."" " " Figure(8."Group"level"(N"=25)"wholeGbrain"SPM"from"1"x"3"repeated"measures" ANOVA"[F"(2,72)]"for"tGcontrast"[t#(1,72)]"of"reward"prediction"error,"controlling"for" effects"of"decision"value"and"choice"value."Thresholded"for"display"at"p"<"0.05," (FWE"corrected,"extent:"k"≥"154"voxels,"height:"t(1,24)"≥"2.65)."" ( Table(2."Peak"MNI"statistics"for"wholeGbrain"contrast"of"reward"prediction"error" (Experiment"2)."All"reported"clusters"are"significant"at"p"<"0.05,"corrected"for" multiple"comparisons"at"via"FWE"height"and"extent"thresholds,"or"FWE"corrected" extent"threshold"of"at"least"138"contiguous"voxels"and"uncorrected"height" threshold"of"p"<"0.005."" (( voxels( peak( MNI(coordinates( {mm}( Region( k( T" x( y( z( occipital"pole" 512" 7.9" G10" G102" 10" ventral"striatum" 92" 7.71" 14" 8" G10" occipital"fusiform"gyrus" 323" 7.71" 38" G82" G16" occipital"fusiform"gyrus" 249" 7.23" G28" G68" G16" lateral"occipital"cortex" 109" 7.13" G26" G76" 24" lateral"occipital"cortex" 147" 7.12" 28" G68" 30" ventral"striatum" 45" 7.01" G14" 4" G16" occipital"cortex" 109" 6.56" 48" G66" G6" inferior"temporal"gyrus" 11" 6.36" 54" G56" G14" occipital"cortex" 16" 6.15" G46" G70" G4" occipital"fusiform"gyrus" 10" 5.95" 20" G82" G22" "Extent"&"height"thresholds""G#p#<"0.05"FWE" occipital"pole" 38692" 8.09" 12" G100" 8" orbitofrontal"cortex" 321" 6.07" G22" 30" G18" frontal"pole" 391" 5.27" 46" 44" 2" cerebellum" 202" 5.21" 32" G40" G42" superior"temporal"gyrus" 487" 5.08" G50" 40" 10" orbitofrontal"cortex" 149" 4.73" 24" 28" G18" postcentral"gyrus" 1256" 4.51" G58" G10" 28" superior"frontal"gyrus" 258" 4.43" 24" 32" 48" 39! Extent"threshold""G#p#<""0.05,"FWE"(k"≥"138),"height"threshold""G#p#<"0.05"FDR# " " Although"there"is"no"dearth"of"fMRI"experiments"that"report"activity"in"the" nucleus"accumbens"(a"Google"Scholar"search"for"“nucleus"accumbens"fmri”" returns">"20,000"articles"as"of"May"10,"2015),"the"resolution"of"BOLD"fMRI"has," historically,"been"insufficient"to"support"strong"inferences"about"activity"in"nAcc" proper."The"nucleus"accumbens"is"a"relatively"small"structure"and"one"that"can" be"notoriously"difficult"to"isolate"from"adjacent"basal"forebrain"nuclei"(e.g.," caudate,"putamen)"even"with"approaches"that"afford"a"far"higher"degree"of" anatomical"precision"than"fMRI"(e.g.,"histological"slice"preparation)."While"highG resolution"anatomical"images"(typically"[1"x"1"x"1]"mm)"may"allow"for"meaningful" parcellation"of"the"striatum"into"its"component"nuclei,"classic"BOLDGEPI"cannot" typically"obtain"wholeGbrain"coverage"at"a"resolution"finer"than"[3.125"x"3.125"x"4]" mm,"and"so"to"localize"fMRI"signal"to"the"nAcc"is"to"make"a"bold"claim," anatomically"speaking."However,"the"exponential"increase"in"spatial"resolution"of" BOLDGEPI"afforded"by"multiGband"acceleration"and"parallel"imaging,"which"can" acquire"whole"brain"volumes"at"[2"x"2"x"2]"mm"in"under"two"seconds,"make" inferences"about"function"of"the"nAcc"from"BOLDGEPI"data"far"more"tenable." Granted,"this"increase"in"precision,"albeit"significant,"still"does"not"yield"the""high" resolution"of"structural"MRI,"and"a"hasty"marriage"of"neuroanatomical"labels"and" blobs"from"statistical"maps"is"never"likely"to"end"well,"regardless"of"how"fineG grained"the"images"may"be"(Devlin"and"Poldrack,"2007)."That"said,"peak" activation"coordinates"often"reported"in"the"literature"as"“ventral"striatum”"may"fall" into"one"of"several"distinct"structural"nuclei"(e.g.,"caudate,"putamen)."" In"the"instant"case,"the"significant"activity"associated"with"prediction"error" is"located"almost"entirely"in"the"coordinate"space"of"the"nucleus"accumbens," slightly"extending"into"the"ventral"putamen"in"the"lateral"extreme"and"subcallosal" cortex"in"the"inferior"extreme."What"may"appear"to"be"a"neuroanatomical" digression"is"actually"quite"salient"to"any"neuroimaging"investigation"of"reward," as"the"computational"models"we"typically"use"to"decompose"reward"processes" 40! are"almost"exclusively"descended"from"models"based"on"single"unit"recordings" from"the"nAcc"in"slice"preparation"or"animal"models." Conjunction(across(Experiments(1(and(2" A"casual"visual"inspection"of"the"maps"for"significant"activity"elicited"by"the" SVC"and"PDM"tasks"implies"considerable"overlap"between"selfGrelevant"and" rewardGrelated"processing"at"the"neural"level,"as"we"would"expect"in"light"of" previous"empirical"demonstrations"to"that"effect"(Tamir"and"Mitchell,"2012)."In" order"to"formally"assess"this"relationship,"the"linear"contrast"images"for"prediction" error"and"self">"change"from"each"subject’s"firstGlevel"model"were"entered"into"a" 1"x"2"flexible"factorial"model,"with"one"regressor"for"PE,"one"for"self">"change," and"an"additional"regressor"of"no"interest"for"each"subject,"assuming"nonG independence"and"unequal"variance"across"conditions."Group"level"contrasts"for" self">"change"and"PE"error"were"then"tested"against"the"conjunction"null" hypothesis"that"either"or"both"the"effects"of"self"or"reward"are"null"at"each"voxel," revealing"significant"clusters"of"activity"in"the"mesial"ventral"striatum,"ventral" medial"prefrontal"cortex,"and"both"anterior"and"posterior"aspects"of"the"cingulate" gyrus"(Figure(9,"Table(3)."Additional"clusters"significant"across"tasks"of"self"and" reward"are"present"in"visual"and"motor"cortex,"but"as"these"are"readily"explained" by"the"perceptual"and"motor"demands"common"to"both"tasks"and"not" immediately"relevant"to"the"scientific"questions"of"interest,"activity"in"these" regions"is"not"further"considered"here." " Behavioral(Results,(Experiment(3((Differential(Self5Disclosure)( Participants"earned"the"most"gold"coins"for"disclosures"to"friends"(M"=" 83.52,"SD"="18.98),"followed"by"disclosures"to"parents"(M"="77.84,"SD"="16.44)," and"earned"the"fewest"gold"coins"for"keeping"answers"private"(M"="63.66,"SD"=" 31.2?"F(2,74)"="3.59,"p"<"0.05?"Figure(10)."The"average"monetary"value"of"each" decision,"however,"did"not"differ"across"disclosure"audiences"(F(2,74)"="0.045,"p" ="0.96)."This"is"because"participants"typically"chose"the"more"valuable"option,"but" when"gold"coins"were"equal,"chose"parents"on"roughly"half"of"available"choices" 41! (M"="50.8%,"SD"="0.063),"chose"friends"more"frequently"(M"="56.8%,"SD"="0.15)," and"chose"to"keep"answers"private"less"often"(M"="40%"SD"="0.22?"F(2,74)"=" 5.173,"p"<"0.01?"Figure(11)."These"behavioral"results"were"crucial"in"guiding"the" decision"to"include"the"number"of"gold"coins"received"(but"not"the"difference" between"gold"coins"received"and"the"alternative"option)"as"a"parametric" modulator"in"the"neuroimaging"models,"and"to"variance"weight"the"betas" accordingly"in"light"of"the"discrepancy"of"disclosure"events"per"audience."" " ( Figure(9."Group"level"(N#="25)"wholeGbrain"SPM"for"conjunction"across"contrasts" from"independent"tasks"of"selfGrelevant"cognition"(Experiment"1)"and"reward" prediction"error"(Experiment"2?"FWE"corrected"for"multiple"comparisons,"extent:"k" ≥"158"voxels,"height:"t(1,48)"≥"2.65,"p"<0.005)."Red"sphere"indicates"origin"at" MNI"coordinates"["x"="0,"y"="0,"z"="0"]"mm"thresholded"for"display"at"p"<"0.05."For" precise"peak"and"cluster"statistics,"refer"to"Table"3." " Table(3."Peak"MNI"statistics"for"conjunction"across"self"and"reward."Coordinates" for"conjunction"across"independent"tasks"of"selfGreferential"cognition"(self"versus" change"contrast,"Experiment"1)"and"probabilistic"decision"making"(reward" prediction"error"contrast,"Experiment"2)."All"reported"clusters"are"significant"at"p"<" 0.05,"corrected"for"multiple"comparisons"via"combined"extent"threshold"of"at"least" 138"contiguous"voxels"(p#<"0.05,"FWE)"and"height"threshold"of"p"<"0.005" (uncorrected)." (( voxels( peak( MNI(coordinates( {mm}( Region( k( T" x( y( z( mesial"ventral"striatum" 347" 5.63" G6" 10" G8" posterior"cingulate"gyrus" 893" 5.49" G6" G48" 28" perigenual"anterior"cingulate"gyrus" 1157" 5.19" G8" 48" G8" occipital"cortex" 926" 5.16" G48" G68" G16" cerebellum" 185" 5.13" 24" G54" G20" lingual"gyrus" 521" 4.71" 8" G86" G10" postcentral"gyrus" 317" 4.47" G34" G24" 52" Extent"threshold"G#p#<""0.05,"FWE"(k"≥"158)," height"threshold"G#p#<"0.005"(uncorrected)" 42! ( " " " " ( Figure(10."Coins"earned"by"prospective"disclosure"condition."Participants"earned" significantly"different"amounts"of"coins"for"each"disclosure"audience,"as"indicated" by"a"significant"main"effect"for"a"1"x"3"repeated"measures"ANOVA"(F"(2,74)"=" 3.59,"p"<"0.05)."Stars"indicate"significant"differences"(p"<"0.05)"as"indexed"by" postGhoc"pairedGsamples"tGtests." " " " " " ( Figure(11."Effect"of"audience"on"disclosure"choices."When"gold"coin"amounts" were"equal,"participants"significantly"preferred"prospective"social"disclosures,"as" indicated"by"a"significant"main"effect"for"a"1"x"3"repeated"measures"ANOVA"(F" (2,74)"="5.17,"p"<"0.005)."Stars"indicate"significant"differences"(p"<"0.05)"as" indexed"by"postGhoc"pairedGsamples"tGtests." " ( ( 43! Neuroimaging(Results,(Experiment(3((Differential(Self5Disclosure)( Voxelwise"statistical"parametric"maps"summarizing"the"condition"effects" for"“keep"it"private,”"“share"with"friend,”"and"“share"with"parent”"(controlling"for" monetary"value"of"gold"coins"on"a"per"trial"basis)"were"entered"into"a"1"x"3" repeated"measures"ANOVA"(with"an"additional"regressor"of"no"interest"for"each" subject),"assuming"nonGindependence"and"unequal"variance"across"conditions" (Table(4)."At"height"and"extent"thresholds"of"p"<"0.005,"an"omnibus"test"revealed" a"main"effect"of"disclosure"audience"in"ventromedial"prefrontal"cortex"(vmPFC)" and"medial"posterior"parietal"cortex"(mpPC)."Subsequent"contrasts"(Figure(12)" between"individual"audience"conditions"indicated"that"the"main"effect"was"driven" by"sharing"(Figure(13)." Parameter"estimates"for"each"condition"were"extracted"from"each"of"the" three"functionally"defined"regions"of"interest"(mpPC,"mVs,"vmPFC?"clusters"from" the"conjunction"across"independent"tasks"of"self"and"reward)"and"entered"into"1" x"3"repeated"measures"ANOVA"models"(Table(5,"Figure(14)."Responses"in" vmPFC"and"mpPC"showed"a"linear"trend,"such"that"disclosures"to"friends"elicited" the"strongest"responses,"followed"by"those"to"parents,"and"keeping"answers" private"elicited"the"weakest"profile"of"activity"(mpPC:"F(2,74)"="11.56,"p"<"0.005," vmPFC:"F"="4.55,"p"<"0.05)"."Disclosure"audience"also"exhibited"a"significant" effect"on"mesial"vS"activity"(F(2,74)"="5.58,"p"<"0.01),"but"sharing"with"a"parent" and"sharing"with"a"friend"did"not"differ,"while"keeping"a"fact"private"resulted"in"a" (relatively)"stronger"deactivation."" " 44! " ( Figure(12."WholeGbrain"SPMs"for"selfGdisclosure"contrasts."Group"level"(N"=25)" wholeGbrain"SPMs"from"1"x"3"repeated"measures"ANOVA"[F"(2,72)]"across" disclosure"audience"conditions"(Experiment"3)."Red"sphere"indicates"origin"at" MNI"coordinates"["x"="0,"y"="0,"z"="0"]"mm."Thresholded"for"display"at"p"<"0.005," (uncorrected"p"<"0.005,"extent:"k"≥"75"voxels,"height:"t(1,24)"≥"2.65)."Individual"tG contrasts"(t#(1,72)")"across"prospectively"social"(i.e.,"share"with"parent,"share"with" friend)"and"private"(i.e.,"‘keep"it"private’)"contexts:"(A)"share"with"friend">"keep"it" private?"(B)"share"with"parent">"keep"it"private?"(C)"share"with"friend">"share"with" parent?"(D)"keep"it"private">"share"with"parent."For"precise"peak"and"cluster" statistics,"refer"to"Table"4." " " " ( Figure(13."WholeGbrain"SPM"for"sharing"versus"private."Contrast"of"sharing" (averaged"across"friend"and"parent)">"‘keep"it"private’"across"disclosure" audience"conditions"from"group"level"(N"=25)"wholeGbrain"SPM"from"1"x"3" repeated"measures"ANOVA"[F"(2,72)]"of"differential"self"disclosure"(Experiment" 3)."Red"sphere"indicates"origin"at"MNI"coordinates"["x"="0,"y"="0,"z"="0"]"mm." Thresholded"for"display"at"p"<"0.005,"(uncorrected"p"<"0.005,"extent:"k"≥"75" voxels,"height:"t(1,24)"≥"2.65)."For"precise"peak"and"cluster"statistics,"refer"to" Table"4." " 45! Table(4.(Peak"MNI"coordinates"and"stastics"from"group"level"(N"="25)"wholeG brain,"1"x"3"repeated"measures"ANOVA"omnibus"and"individual"condition" contrast"SPMs"from"differential"selfGdisclosure"(Experiment"3)." (region( voxels( peak( MNI(coordinates({mm}( ( ( " ( ( (Main"Effect"of"Disclosure"Audience"(F)" (( k( T" x( y( z( ventral"medial"prefrontal"cortex" 157" 18.12" 2" 46" G18" medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" " 591" 15.39" G4" G56" 30" share"with"friend">"keep"it"private" (( k( T" x( y( z( anterior"medial"prefrontal"cortex" 281" 5.29" G4" 56" G10" medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" " 867" 5.12" 0" G56" 8" share"with"parent">"keep"it"private" (( k( T" x( y( z( medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" 162" 5.04" G4" G56" 30" anterior"medial"prefrontal"cortex" " 98" 4.38" G4" 56" G10" keep"it"private">"share"with"parent" (( k( T" x( y( z( temporal"parietal"junction" " 161" 5.08" 54" G48" 32" share"with"friend">"share"with"parent" (( k( T" x( y( z( medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" " 257" 4.87" 6" G62" 26" share"friend"&"parent">"keep"it"private" (( k( T" x( y( z( medial"posterior"parietal"cortex" 645" 5.55" G4" G56" 30" anterior"medial"prefrontal"cortex" 226" 5.32" 4" 56" G10" mesial"ventral"striatum" 81" 4.33" 4" G2" G10" Extent"&"height"thresholds""G#p#<""0.005"(k"≥"75,"uncorrected)# " " " " " " " " " " 46! Table(5."SelfGdisclosure"activity"in"conjunction"ROIs."Differential"selfGdisclosure" activity"in"functionally"defined"regions"of"interest"(ROIs)"from"conjunction"across" self"versus"change"contrast"(Experiment"1)"and"reward"prediction"error"contrast" (Experiment"2)."Statistics"describe"repeated"measures"ANOVAs"["F#(2,74)"]"and" postGhoc"pairedGsamples"tGtests"["t#(2,48)"]." " Conjunction"across"Experiments"1"&"2" {self">"change"&&"prediction"error}" " ( mesial(ventral(striatum( "" F" p" η2" main"effect" 5.59" 0.007" 18.88" "" T" p" "" friend">"self" 3.17" 0.004" "" parent">"self" 2.39" 0.025" "" parent">"friend" G0.39" 0.697" "" ( ventral(medial(prefrontal(cortex( "" F" p" η2" main"effect" 4.55" 0.016" 15.95" "" T" p" "" friend">"self" 1.68" 0.104" "" parent">"self" 2.44" 0.023" "" parent">"friend" 1.84" 0.079" "" ( medial(posterior(parietal(cortex( "" F" p" η2" main"effect" 11.56" 0.001" 32.51" "" T" p" "" friend">"self" 2.91" 0.008" "" parent">"self" 4.07" 0.000" "" parent">"friend" 2.56" 0.017" "" " ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 47! ( ( ( Figure(14.(SelfGdisclosure"activity"in"conjunction"ROIs."Differential"selfGdisclosure" activity"(Experiment"3)"in"functional"regions"of"interest"derived"from"conjunction" across"self"versus"change"(Experiment"1)"and"reward"prediction"error" (Experiment"2)."Stars"indicate"significant"differences"(p"<"0.05)"as"indexed"by" postGhoc"pairedGsamples"tGtests."For"statistical"results"and"precise"MNI"peak" coordinates,"see"Tables"4"&"5." " " " Four"additional"ROIs"were"created"from"the"stringently"thresholded" (wholeGbrain"FWE)"SPMs:"pgACC"and"amPFC"from"the"self">"change"contrast" (Table(6,"Figure(15)"left"and"right"vS"from"the"prediction"error"contrast"(Table(7," Figure(16)?"all"results"masked"to"exclude"voxels"significant"in"the"conjunction"at" a"height"threshold"of"p"<"0.005"and"extent"threshold"of"k"≥"58)."Activity"in"the" amPFC"ROI"exhibited"the"same"significant"linear"pattern"as"other"cortical"midline" structures"(F(2,74)"="9.20,"p"<"0.005),"and"pgACC"demonstrated"a"similar"trend," but"the"difference"hovers"directly"on"the"razor’s"edge"of"significance"(F(2,74)"=" 3.18,"p"="0.050)."The"left"and"right"ventral"striatal"ROIs,"however,"do"not"exhibit" significant"differences"across"disclosure"conditions"(F(2,74)"="1.00,"p"="0.38"and" F(2,74)"="0.20,"respectively)." " 48! Table(6.(SelfGdisclosure"activity"in"selfGrelevance"ROIs."Differential"selfG disclosure"activity"in"functionally"defined"regions"of"interest"(ROIs)"from" conjunction"across"self"versus"change"contrast"(Experiment"1)."Statistics" describe"repeated"measures"ANOVAs"["F#(2,74)"]"and"postGhoc"pairedGsamples"tG tests"["t#(2,48)"].( Self">"change"(Experiment"1)" anterior(medial(prefrontal(cortex( " F" p" η2" " 9.202" 0.001" 27.72"main"effect" T" p" "friend">"self" 2.6131" 0.015" "parent">"self" 3.3687" 0.003" "parent">"friend" 2.5509" 0.018" " medial(posterior(parietal(cortex( " F" p" η2" " 3.182" 0.050" 11.71"main"effect" T" p" "friend">"self" 1.4886" 0.150" "parent">"self" 2.3314" 0.029" "parent">"friend" 1.1312" 0.269" "( ( ( ( Figure(15."SelfGdisclosure"activity"in"selfGrelevance"ROIs."Differential"selfG disclosure"activity"(Experiment"3)"in"functional"regions"of"interest"derived"from" contrast"of"self"versus"change"(Experiment"1)."Stars"indicate"significant" differences"(p"<"0.05)"as"indexed"by"postGhoc,"pairedGsamples"tGtests."For" statistical"results"and"precise"MNI"peak"coordinates,"" see"Tables"1"&"5." 49! Table(7."SelfGdisclosure"activity"in"reward"prediction"error"ROIs."Differential"selfG disclosure"activity"in"functionally"defined"regions"of"interest"(ROIs)"from"reward" prediction"error"contrast"(Experiment"2)."Statistics"describe"repeated"measures" ANOVAs"["F#(2,74)"]"and"postGhoc"pairedGsamples"tGtests"["t#(2,48)"]." Reward"prediction"error"(Experiment"2)" left(ventral(striatum( "" F" p" η2" main"effect" 0.998" 0.376" 3.99" "" T" p" "" friend">"self" 1.5515" 0.134" "" parent">"self" 1.0408" 0.308" "" parent">"friend" G0.0433" 0.966" "" right(ventral(striatum( "" F" p" η2" main"effect" 1.67" 0.199" 6.51" "" T" p" "" friend">"self" 1.8169" 0.082" "" parent">"self" 1.3368" 0.194" "" parent">"friend" G0.3733" 0.712" "" " " " ( ( ( ( 50! ( ( Figure(16."SelfGdisclosure"activity"in"reward"prediction"error"ROIs."Differential" selfGdisclosure"activity"(Experiment"3)"in"functional"regions"of"interest"derived" from"contrast"of"reward"prediction"error,"controlling"for"choice"and"decision"value" (Experiment"2)."Stars"indicate"significant"differences"(p"<"0.05)"as"indexed"by" postGhoc,"pairedGsamples"tGtests."For"statistical"results"and"precise"MNI"peak" coordinates,"see"Tables"2"&"5." " 51! " CHAPTER(V( DISCUSSION( " Overview( Although"the"primary"questions"of"interest"in"the"current"report"center"on" prospective"social"modulation"of"selfGrelevant"neural"activity,"Experiments"1"and" 2"were"specifically"designed"and"implemented"to"create"a"conjoined"search" space"of"neural"substrates"shared"across"independent"tasks"of"personal" relevance"and"probabilistic"decision"making."Consequently,"these"results"are" briefly"addressed"initially"in"order"to"provide"appropriate"context"for"the" discussion"of"region"of"interest"based"analyses"of"differential"self"disclosure" (Experiment"3)"activity."The"impact"and"limitations"of"Experiments"1"and"2"will"be" considered"after"thorough"treatment"of"the"primary"task"of"interest,"followed"by" conclusions"about"the"relevance"of"the"current"work,"implications"and"alternative" interpretations,"and"next"steps"for"further"advancing"the"state"of"neuroimaging" investigations"of"the"selves.( Conclusions( Personal#relevance#and#reward#prediction#error#signals# In"Experiment"1,"selfGreferential"versus"nonGselfGreferential"cognition" elicited"robust"activity"in"medial"prefrontal"cortex"(mPFC)"and"medial"posterior" parietal"cortex"(mPPC)."This"supports"the"wellGreplicated"hypothesis"that"cortical" midline"activity"indexes"personal"relevance."Support"for"the"hypothesis"that"vS" activity"would"be"likewise"associated"with"personal"relevance"is"not"clearly" evident"at"stringent,"wholeGbrain"height"and"extent"thresholds."Somewhat"less" direct"support"for"this"hypothesis"is"provided"by"evidence"of"significant"mvS" activity"in"the"conjunction"analysis,"which"is"also"visually"apparent"in"the"contrast" of"self"versus"change."Due"to"the"massive"spatial"extent"of"significant"clusters," 52! however,"this"activity"cannot"be"attributed"solely"to"vS"(Woo,"Krishnan,"and" Wager,"2014)."In"Experiment"2,"I"simulated"probabilistic"decision"making"in"an" artificial"neural"network"for"each"participant,"and"computed"a"parameter"for" reward"prediction"error"at"each"trial."Reward"prediction"error,"formally"defined"by" the"difference"between"reward"outcome"and"expected"value"of"a"probabilistic" decision,"accounted"for"robust"BOLD"signal"in"the"bilateral"ventral"striatum"(vS)," in"keeping"with"the"hypothesis"that"the"brain’s"reward"prediction"error"signal"is" computed"by"midbrain"dopaminergic"innervation"of"the"nucleus"accumbens" (Delgado"et"al.,"2002)."Although"incremental"replication"may"not"yield"the"same" reward"as"that"of"unprecedented"scientific"discovery,"there"is"still"merit"in" assessing"and"updating"our"paradigms"even"for"processes"with"considerable" empirical"and"metaGanalytic"precedent"to"guide"predictions."Both"the"self"versus" change"contrast"from"Experiment"1"and"the"computationally"derived"reward" prediction"error"contrast"from"Experiment"2"elicited"the"hypothesized"patterns"of" neural"activity,"and"should"be"regarded"as"having"successfully"functionally" localized"selfGrelevant"and"RPE"related"activity,"respectively." Independent#and#overlapping#neural#correlates#of#self9evaluation#and# value9based#decision#making# Conjointly,"the"hypothesized"functional"overlap"between"personal" relevance"and"prediction"error"signal"was"evident"in"mesial"vS"and"vmPFC,"as" well"as"in"the"posterior"cingulate"cortex"(PCC)."I"initially"predicted"that"BOLD" signal"in"pgACC"would"be"likewise"mutually"elicited"across"personal"relevance" and"reward"prediction"error"in"light"of"the"pgACC"reported"by"Enzi"et"al."(2009)." On"further"reflection,"however,"its"absence"from"the"conjunction"analysis"in"the" current"report"is"unsurprising,"as"Enzi"and"colleagues"additionally"demonstrated" that"the"difference"in"pgACC"activity"between"high"personal"relevance"and"a" control"task"consisting"of"simple"figural"orientation"judgments"was"dramatically" higher"than"differences"between"pgACC"responses"to"positive"reward"outcomes" and"the"same,"lowGlevel"control"task." 53! # # Effects#of#disclosure#audience# It"should"first"be"pointed"out"that"no"explicit,"economic"model"was"applied" to"describe"the"behavioral"choices"in"Experiment"3."Because"participants" behaved"like"rational"agents"with"minimal"deviation"from"optimal"behavior,"the" raw"gold"coin"amounts"represent"the"monetary"value"associated"with"each" choice."This"was"accounted"for"at"the"neural"level"by"inclusion"of"a"parametric" modulator"that"controls"for"the"financial"value"of"these"choices."" Accounting"for"monetary"value"as"described"at"the"single"subject"level," groupGlevel"analysis"revealed"a"brainGwide"main"effect"of"disclosure"audience"in" the"ventral"medial"prefrontal"cortex"(vmPFC)"and"the"medial"posterior"parietal" cortex"(mPCC),"providing"fairly"strong"evidence"that"prospective"social"context" modulates"selfGevaluations"in"cortical"midline"structures"(CMS)."Furthermore,"the" enhanced"BOLD"signal"for"prospective"disclosures"to"friends"compared"to" parents"in"mPPC"supports"the"hypothesis"that"the"neural"mechanisms"underlying" assignment"of"personal"relevance"differentiate"the"prospective"social"contexts"of" future"disclosures"to"parents"as"compared"to"friends."The"operationalization"of" personal"relevance"in"this"paradigm"is"also"noteworthy"and"strengthens"the" above"inferences."As"many"neuroimaging"investigations"of"the"self"that"report" personally"relevant"activity"define"selfGrelevance"in"terms"of"selfGreferential" cognition,"as"contrasted"against"nonGselfGreferential"stimuli,"which"may"confound" the"detection"of"effects"specific"to"isolating"the"process"of"interest."The" differential"self"disclosure"task"(Experiment"3)"is"unique"in"that"it"controls"for"selfG referential"processes"to"the"extent"that"all"disclosure"statements"involve"explicit" awareness"of"the"objective"self"as"a"stimulus."Consequently,"any"differences"in" neural"activity"associated"with"prospective"disclosure"conditions"may"reliably"be" attributed"to"the"assignment"or"representation"of"personal"relevance,"rather"than" differences"in"the"degree"to"which"conditions"elicit"selfGreferential"processes."It"is" 54! plausible"that"the"selfGreferential"decision"associated"with"each"prospective" disclosure"might"involve"the"computations"of"outcome"evaluation"and"learning" from"the"choice"of"disclosure"audience,"as"well"as"representation,"value" assignment,"and"action"selection"during"the"subsequent"disclosure."However," because"the"disclosure"statements"are"all"essentially"binary"personal"relevance" judgments,"and"personal"relevance"judgments"depend"on"value"computation,"it"is" most"likely"that"the"selfGreferential"cognition"elicited"in"Experiment"3"is"tied"to"the" neural"computation"of"value"assignment"or"neural"representation"of"that"value." Comparing"prospective"disclosures"(collapsed"across"friend"and"parent)" against"selfGreferential"cognition"in"a"private"context"revealed"activity"in"the"mvS" in"addition"to"vmPFC,"consistent"with"Tamir"and"Mitchell’s"(2012)"finding"that"self" disclosure"is"associated"with"stronger"wholeGbrain"vS"and"vmPFC"responses" than"keeping"answers"private."The"current"work"also"extends"this"line"of"research" by"demonstrating"that"the"effect"applies"not"only"to"the"reward"outcomes" associated"with"immediate"social"sharing"about"the"self,"but"to"the"value"of" disclosures"to"be"resolved"in"the"future."The"activity"associated"with"prospective" social"selves"is"quite"compelling"in"its"immediate"visual"similarity"to"the" conjunction"across"independent"tasks"of"selfGreference"(Experiment"1)"and" reward"prediction"error"(Experiment"2)."Independent"contrasts"of"prospective" social"disclosures"versus"private"selfGreference"revealed"patterns"of"activity"in" CMS"similar"to"those"evident"in"the"main"effect"contrast,"but"was"dramatically" more"robust"in"mPPC"for"sharing"with"friend,"while"clusters"of"mPFC"activity"were" similar"for"disclosures"to"either"friends"or"parents"compared"to"private"selfG evaluations,"but"situated"approximately"1cm"anterior"and"superior"to"the"peak"of" the"omnibus"test"of"social"context."Although"this"may"seem"like"a"minute" difference,"the"distinction"between"the"vmPFC"cluster"associated"with"combined" disclosures"and"the"slightly"more"superior"and"anterior"clusters"associated"with" disclosures"to"parents"and"friends,"individually"track"roughly"along"Northoff"and" colleague’s"(2006)"proposed"boundary"in"the"mPFC"between"paralimbic""(e.g.," pgACC,"vmPFC)"and"association"cortices"(e.g.,"amPFC,"mPPC)."According"to" this"scheme,"these"anatomically"distinct"cortical"regions"comprise"the"integrative" 55! aspect"of"the"self,"which"combines"visceral,"homeostatic"information"about"the" internal"self"projected"to"paralimbic"regions"(e.g.,"pgACC,"vmPFC)"with" information"about"the"external"self"from"primary"sensory"and"motor"projections"to" heteromodal"association"cortices"(e.g.,"amPFC,"mPPC?"Northoff,"Feinberg,"and" Qin,"2010)."The"individual"clusters"associated"with"friend"versus"private"and" parent"versus"private"contexts"more"closely"resemble"the"region"of"amPFC" Nicolle"et"al."(2011)"implicated"in"abstract"models,"while"the"vmPFC"cluster"for" disclosing"compared"to"keeping"selfGevaluations"private"more"closely"resembles" paralimbic"regions"implicated"in"integrating"interoceptive"signals"with"externally" derived"sensorimotor"information"meaning"(Roy,"Shohamy,"and"Wager,"2013)." However,"while"these"observations"are"well"in"line"with"the"conceptual"approach" of"this"the"empirical"study"at"hand,"they"are"not"informed"by"a"formal"a#priori" hypotheses,"and"are"discussed"to"provide"context"and"conceptual"resonance" with"the"work"on"which"this"research"is"based,"rather"than"to"serve"as"evidence" for"any"inferences"about"the"proposed"broader"function"of"mPFC."Collectively," findings"at"the"whole"brain"level"support"the"hypothesis"that"activity"in"the"vS"and" CMS"differentiate"private"selfGreferential"cognition"from"the"prospective"social" context"of"future"disclosure"(controlling"for"any"discrepancies"in"reward"outcomes" across"conditions)." Differential#assignment#of#personal#relevance#and#value#in#functionally#defined# regions#of#interest" Differential"responses"in"the"mesial"ventral"striatum"(mvS)"distinguished" between"both"social"contexts"as"individually"compared"against"private"selfG reflection,"which"is"consistent"with"Tamir"and"Mitchell’s"(2012)"finding,"but"did"not" distinguish"between"disclosures"to"parents"and"disclosures"to"friends."In"mPPC" and"vmPFC,"structures"mutually"implicated"in"independent"tasks"of"self"and" reward,"BOLD"signal"increased"linearly"for"keeping"a"fact"private,"sharing"with"a" parent,"and"sharing"with"a"friend,"respectively."In"concert"with"the"visually"evident" similarities"between"the"conjunction"and"contrast"of"disclosures"versus"private" selfGevaluations"and"results"at"the"whole"brain"level,"this"is"relatively"strong" 56! evidence"that"the"value"assignment"associated"with"personal"relevance"is" contingent"upon"the"imagined"social"context"(or"lack"thereof)"in"which"stimuli"are" presented."Not"only"does"it"appear"that"the"prospective"social"selves"collectively"" “rank"more"highly”"(p.74)"than"the"isolated"scannerGself,"as"indexed"by"vS" differentiation"between"sharing"and"private"selfGevaluations,"but"cortical"midline" structures"further"differentiate"between"the"personal"relevance"associated"with" prospective"social"contexts,"supporting"the"hypothesis"that"cortical"midline" structures"implement"multiple"aspects"of"the"social"self"or"selves."It"may"be"the" case"that"thinking"about"potential"social"selves"elicits"more"robust"“selfG referential”"activity"than"thinking"about"the"isolated,"but"immediate"self.# # Implications(and(Next(Steps( NeuroSynth,"a"tool"for"conducting"formal"reverse"inference,"allows"users" to"upload"unthresholded"statistical"parametric"maps"and"“decode”"them"against"a" metaGanalytic"database"of"reverseGinference"maps,"automatically"generated"by" crossGindexing"frequently"occurring"words"in"neuroimaging"manuscripts"with" reported"MNIGcoordinates"(Yarkoni,"Poldrack,"Nichols,"Van"Essen,"and"Wager," 2011)."Analysis"of"the"statistical"parametric"map"(SPM)"for"the"group"level" contrast"of"share"with"friend">"answer"privately"revealed"that"it"was"more"tightly" linked"to"reverse"inference"maps"associated"with"“autobiographical,”"“self,”"“selfG referential”"than"to"any"other"psychological"processes."The"only"terms"more" strongly"correlated"describe"the"spatial"or"anatomical"regions"active"in"the" contrast"(e.g.,"“medial"prefrontal,”"“posterior"cingulate,”"“midline”)"or"brainGwide" networks"of"which"they"are"components"(e.g.,"“default"mode”)."Although"the" aforementioned"terms,"conveniently,"describe"the"regions"of"interest"derived"from" the"overlap"of"independent"tasks"of"self"and"reward,"the"cortical"midline"is" likewise"engaged"by"many"other"psychological"processes."However,"because" these"correlations"are"with"the"reverse,"rather"than"forward"inference"maps" associated"with"the"terms,"they"suggest"that"the"share"with"friend"versus"answer" privately"contrast"is"selectively"associated"with"those"regions,"controlling"for"their" prevalence"in"the"neuroimaging"literature."A"similar,"albeit"weaker,"pattern"was" 57! evident"for"the"group"level"TGmap"for"share"with"parent"versus"answer"privately." The"inverse"contrast"(private">"parent)"was"related"predominantly"to"terms" concerning"attention,"working"memory,"or"executive"control"(no"socially"relevant" terms"out"of"the"strongest"10%"of"correlations)."( " Synthesizing"wholeGbrain"findings"on"the"effects"of"disclosure"audience," differential"activity"in"independently"derived"regions"of"interest,"and"metaGanalytic" decoding"of"the"unthresholded"SPMs,"this"work"collectively"suggests"that"thinking" about"the"self"one"wants"to"share"with"a"friend"or"parent"elicits"neural"activity"that" is"more"similar"to"what"is"typically"reported"as"“selfGreferential”"processing"than" thinking"about"the"self"in"private."Although"this"does"not"constitute"strong" evidence"that"the"self"is"a"social"construct,"it"is"an"interesting"finding,"especially" in"light"of"William"James’"sentiments"that"we"have"multiple"social"selves,"and"that" out"of"all"of"them,"“the"potential"social"Me"is"the"most"interesting”"(p."190),"at" least"in"terms"of"the"allocation"of"neural"resources." Another"means"of"exploring"the"dynamics"of"multiple"social"selves"might" be"to"distinguish"true"selfGdisclosures"from"evaluations"of"previously"shared" information."If"guesses"can"be"successfully"retrieved"from"parents"and"friends" about"the"yes/no"answers"that"participants"disclosed,"then"whether"or"not"each" item"constitutes"a"novel"“disclosure”"or"rather"“shared"self"knowledge”"could"be" determined"by"comparing"all"congruent"answers"(e.g.,"participant"answered"yes" to"“I"want"to"learn"to"surf,”"friend"guessed"participant"would"say"yes)"to" incongruent"answers"(e.g.,"participant"answered"no"to"“I"hate"spicy"mustard,”" Mom"guessed"participant"would"answer"yes)."Using"a"stateGbased"decision" algorithm"might"afford"the"opportunity"to"classify"neural"activity"associated"with" “disclosures”"compared"to"“shared"self"knowledge”"and"predict"behavioral" choices"on"each"trial"accordingly."If"a"“model"free”"reinforcementGlearning" algorithm"can"be"trained"to"classify"“shared"self"knowledge”"trials"based"on"the" neural"signature"of"“friendGMe”"or"“parentGMe”"compared"to"the"consequence"free" and"nonGsocial"“privateGMe”"(or"minimally"social"“scannerGMe”"that"only"involves"a" spatially"remote"experimenter"and"technician),"this"would"prove"a"powerful" demonstration"of"differentiable"social"selves." 58! One"entirely"unanticipated"result"is"the"presence"of"activity"in"the"right"temporalG parietal"junction"(rTPJ)"for"private"selfGreflection"versus"prospective"disclosures" to"parents."This"observation"is"initially"confusing"in"light"of"routine"implications"of" rTPJ"in"perspective"taking,"mentalizing,"theory"of"mind,"and"other"tasks"of"social" cognition"(van"Overwalle,"2009),"which"would"suggest"that"disclosures"to"friends" or"to"parents"would"be"more"likely"to"elicit"such"a"pattern,"but"rTPJ"is"also" involved"in"a"number"of"nonGsocial"attentional"processes"(Mitchell,"et"al.,"2006)," and"decoding"the"SPM"did"not"indicate"any"correlations"with"social"terms."The" reciprocally"inverted"patterns"of"CMS"activity"for"prospective"social"contexts" compared"to"private"selfGevaluations"suggests"that"this"anomaly"may"be"part"of"a" broader"pattern,"but"one"that"is"difficult"to"discern."A"recent"methodologically"and" conceptually"innovative"study"used"multivariate"classification"and"economic" models"of"decision"behavior"to"classify"subjects"choices"in"a"gambling"game" against"human"or"computer"opponents"based"on"multivariate"decoding"of"110" anatomically"parcellated"regions"(Carter,"Bowling,"Reeck"and"Huettel,"2012)." Only"rTPJ"was"uniquely"capable"of"classifying"behavioral"decisions"that"involved" both"social"context"and"relevant"future"outcomes."This"illustrates"a"particularly" compelling"approach"to"the"open"question"about"the"function"of"rTPJ"in"these" processes,"because"it"provides"the"chance"to"test"whether"we"can"classify" behavioral"choices"based"only"on"patterns"of"associated"neural"activity."While"a" modelGbased"algorithm"like"the"RGW"model"used"to"assess"reward"prediction" error"may"be"too"coarse"for"making"fineGgrained"social"distinctions"of"this"sort," abstract,"stateGbased,"“model"free”"algorithms"have"been"used"to"explain"vmPFC" activity"for"tasks"in"which"there"is"no"“optimal”"response"(Hampton,"et"al.,"2006).(( Limitations(and(Alternative(Interpretations( One"factor"that"may"confound"the"results"reported"in"Experiment"3"is"that," because"no"true"“share"with"self"in"the"future”"condition"was"implemented," comparisons"of"prospective"disclosures"against"private"selfGreflection"may"be" contaminated"by"differences"in"effects"of"engaging"in"prospective"cognition." 59! Although"autobiographical"recall"and"projection"of"oneself"into"the"future"tend"to" elicit"similar"patterns"of"neural"activity,"these"patterns"of"activity"are"also"located" in"precisely"the"same"locations"as"the"medial"prefrontal"activity"observed"in"the" present"task"(AndrewsGHannah,"Saxe,"and"Yarkoni,"2014)."The"same"differences" between"sharing"with"friend,"sharing"with"parent,"and"choosing"not"to"share"could" be"plausibly"elicited"by"simply"engaging"in"the"most"prospective"memory"when" thinking"about"a"new"friend"(because"they"represent"the"information"domain"most" likely"to"be"incomplete),"less"when"thinking"about"their"parents"(about"whom" considerably"less"prospection"is"likely"to"be"elicited)"and"the"least"for"private" reflection,"which"does"not"require"projecting"oneself"into"the"future."" " Alternatively,"it"may"not"be"projecting"oneself"into"the"future"per#se"that" drives"this"effect,"but"rather"the"difference"in"cognitive"load"between"simply" evaluating"the"current"self"and"evaluating"a"simulated"self"about"which"to" disclose."Because"both"prospective"disclosure"conditions"entail"future" consequences"while"the"consequences"of"private"selfGevaluation"are"largely" resolved"immediately,"prospective"disclosures"may"additional"involve"processes" of"elaboration,"simulation,"or"imagination."Yet"another"interpretation"is"that"events" with"implications"for"future"outcomes"are"more"closely"attended"to."However,"one" prominent"hypothesis"of"attention"at"the"cellular"level"describes"attention"in"a" normative"framework"for"synaptic"gainGmodulation"(Reynolds"and"Heeger,"2009)" that"is"essentially"the"same"as"models"of"gain"modulation"that"explain"saccades" toward"a"rewarding"target"(Louie"and"Glimcher,"2011)."It"could"be"likewise" argued"that"salience"is,"essentially,"a"question"of"motivational"or"personal" relevance"(Schacter,"et"al.,"2007)."‘Incentive"salience’"is"also"one"of"the"primary" components"of"rewardGrelated"processes"that"Berridge"(2012)"describes"as" relating"to"motivation"or"desire."The"point"of"these"arguments"is"not"to"obfuscate" alternative"interpretations"with"circular"logic,"but"rather"to"suggest"that,"because" the"self"can"be"implicated"in"most,"if"not"all,"psychological"phenomena,"looking" for"explanations"based"on"neurobiological"mechanisms"that"are"similarly" implicated"across"processes"of"interest"may"prove"a"more"fruitful"approach."What" this"means"is"that"if"formally"defined,"computational"models"can"simultaneously" 60! explain"observed"behavior"and"characterize"the"neural"activity"underlying"the" BOLD"signal,"they"may"be"an"extremely"effective"strategy"for"addressing" semantically"defined"psychological"concepts"at"multiple"levels"of"analysis" (Cacioppo"and"Bernston,"1992?"Rangel,"Camerer,"and"Montague,"2008)." The"current"sample"was"constrained"to"firstGyear"college"students"because" we"assumed"that"a"new"friend"would"be"the"most"salient"or"motivationally" relevant"social"context"for"the"self"during"this"transitional"period,"allowing"us"to" better"differentiate"the"“friendGself”"from"the"“parentGself.”"It"is"known"that"early" adolescents"recruit"stronger"activity"than"adults"in"CMS"during"direct"selfG reflection,"and"that"the"extent"of"this"activity"is"further"modulated"by"the" interaction"of"social"context"and"stimulus"content"(Pfeifer,"et"al.,"2009)," conclusions"based"on"the"current"results"should"be"considered"in"light"of"the"fact" that"a"similarly"enhanced"response"may"be"evident"for"late"adolescents"(i.e.,"the" current"sample),"but"absent"in"a"more"typically"“adult”"population."The"results"of" this"dissertation"are"consistent"with"other"prior"work"in"our"laboratory,"namely"that" vmPFC"responses"to"social"selfGevaluations"are"known"to"increase"longitudinally" from"late"childhood"to"early"adolescence"(Pfeifer"et"al.,"2013),"and"striatal" responses"differ"for"early"adolescents"and"adults"across"contentGbased"and" processGbased"manipulations"of"selfGreferential"stimuli"(Jankowski"et"al.,"2014)." In"light"of"these"findings,"two"potential"confounds"should"be"considered."First," although"all"selfGdisclosure"statements"were"designed"to"be"equally"trivial,"the" domain"content"of"some"statements"could"be"construed"as"academic"(e.g."“I"like" to"read"books”),"while"others"are"more"obviously"in"the"social"domain"(e.g.,"“I" make"people"laugh”)."Because"statements"were"randomized"across"pairs"of" possible"disclosure"audiences,"it"is"possible"that"domainGspecific"stimuli"are"more" prevalent"in"one"condition"for"some"subjects"than"others."Secondly,"although"we" assume"that"firstGyear"college"students"will"be"most"likely"to"value"the"social" context"associated"with"a"new"friend"more"than"that"associated"with"a"parent,"this" may"vary"widely"across"participants."Assessment"of"additional"selfGreport" measures"concerning"the"precise"nature"of"participants’"relationships"to"the" social"targets"of"interest"may"help"to"clarify"whether"the"assumption"that" 61! disclosures"to"new"friends"can"be"regarded"as"more"salient"than"those"to" parents."" Impact(and(Future(Directions( A#new#paradigm#for#self9referential#processing# The"dominant"selfGreference"control"stimulus"in"Experiment"1"is"the" inquiry,"“Can"it"change?”"(about"people"in"general)"with"regard"to"a"social"trait" adjective."Although"evaluating"the"extent"to"which"a"trait"adjective"is"static"may" seem"like"an"unlikely"task"to"contrast"against"selfGreferential"evaluations,"the"use" of"this"phrase"as"the"most"appropriate"control"was"determined"via"an"iterative" process"of"conceptual"and"empirical"refinement."Empirical"validation"of"this" paradigm"through"traditional,"forward"inference"approach"was"bolstered"by"a" formal"reverse"inference,"conducted"by"uploading"the"unthresholded"SPM"to"the" NeuroVault"(Gorgolewski"et"al.,"2015)"repository"and"carrying"out"whole"brain" decoding"against"the"NeuroSynth"database"(Yarkoni"et"al.,"2011)."Decoding" revealed"that"the"self">"change"SPM"is"more"specifically"linked"to"reported" activity"in"the"literature"associated"with"the"word"“self”"than"over"3,300"other" topics"of"interest.# By"combining"forward"and"reverse"inference"approaches,"we"can"be"more" confident"in"the"extent"to"which"the"operationalization"of"selfGreferential"cognition" in"terms"of"the"self"versus"change"contrast"reflects"reports"in"the"literature" empirically,"rather"than"by"carrying"out"a"motivated"visual"search"for"activity"in" structures"of"interest."Reverse"inference"must"be"conducted"with"great"care,"as" postGhoc"rationalization"about"unexplained"activity"in"a"neural"structure"in"terms" of"the"psychological"processes"that"frequently"implicate"that"structure"assuredly" constitutes"a"logical"error."Extending"support"for"a#priori"hypotheses"by" considering"the"probability"that"conceptually"relevant"words"appear"in"the" literature"(given"the"empirically"derived"neural"activity)"in"tandem"with"the" probability"of"neural"activity"(given"the"operationalized"psychological"concept)"is" not,"however,"a"reverse"inference"error,"but"a"measured"and"justifiable" application"of"formal"reverse"inference"(Poldrack,"2011)."By"validating"this" 62! paradigm"through"traditional"forward"and"metaGanalytic"reverse"inference,"this" work"provides"a"powerful"tool"for"future"investigations"of"selfGreferential"cognition" or"personal"relevance."In"addition"to"the"potential"for"giving"rise"to"increasingly" abstract"and"complex"explorations"of"who"people"think"they"are"or"might"become," these"findings"have"practical"implications"as"well,"to"be"discussed"in"the"next" section."# Implications#for#development#and#psychopathology## # All"of"the"paradigms"in"the"current"work"were"designed"with"a"specific"eye" toward"ready"deployment"in"developmental"populations."Adolescents"are"often" portrayed"as"making"more"risky"decisions"than"adults"or"children"(Burnett,"Bault," Coricelli,"and"Blakemore,"2010),"especially"in"the"presence"of"peers"(Steinberg" 2008),"although"this"has"been"called"into"question"by"a"recent"metaGanalysis" (Defoe"et"al.,"2014)."Social"contexts"also"heighten"adolescent"preferences"for" immediate"rewards"(O’Brien,"Albert,"Chein,"and"Steinberg,"2011)."Therefore," expanding"disclosure"audiences"to"include"selfGidentified"versus"parentGidentified" “bad"influences”"or"“good"influences”"may"be"one"way"to"differentiate"the"extent" to"which"we"select"our"own"potential"future"selves"from"the"extent"to"which"they" are"chosen"for"us."We"know"that"the"adolescent"brain"is"more"fineGgrained"than"a" phrenological"seesaw"in"which"adultGsized"basal"ganglia"are"pitted"against"an" immature"neocortex,"but"demonstrating"that"the"ventral"striatum"contributes"to" ultimately"wise"(or"at"least"parentGapproved)"decisions"as"well"as"poor"ones"may" help"better"characterize"this"oftGmaligned"region"of"the"brain"as"socialGself" seeking"rather"than"simply"wild"thrill"seeking"(Pfeifer"and"Allen,"2012)." Research"on"selfGrelevance"and"reward"may"also"contribute"to"our" understanding"of"maladaptive"behavior,"and"de"Greck"and"colleagues"(2008)" have"shown"that"pathological"gamblers"demonstrate"attenuated"vS"and"vmPFC" responses"to"both"selfGrelevant"and"rewarding"stimuli."A"better"understanding"of" social"influences"on"the"brain’s"valuation"systems"will"inform"our"academic" understanding"issues"of"substance"dependence"and"abuse,"but"it"may"also"help" us"to"actively"solve"individual"and"societal"problems"caused"by"addiction,"by" 63! identifying"atGrisk"populations,"creating"targeted"interventions,"or"designing"brainG based,"personally"tailored"motivational"strategies"(Berkman,"in"press)."" Further"exploration"of"the"default"mode"and"selfGrelevance"judgments"may" also"inform"our"understanding"of"depression."Severity"of"depressive"symptoms" has"been"shown"to"correlate"with"perigenual"cingulate"responses"to"negatively" valenced,"selfGrelevant"stimuli"(Wagner"et"al.,"2013)."Although"predictionG valuation"models"may"seem"to"some"like"an"overly"abstract"or"even"obtuse"way" of"approaching"psychopathology,"one"neuroanatomical"explanation"of"depression" and"anxiety"suggests"that"these"exaggerated"selfGevaluative"responses"reflect" the"negatively"biased"updating"of"cognitive"expectations"from"noisy"interoceptive" signals"like"reward"prediction"error"(Paulus"and"Stein,"2010)."A"hypothesis"that" relates"this"anatomical"framework"to"the"self"suggests"that"imbalanced" integration"between"noisy,"interoceptive"signals,"abstract"affective"evaluations," and"external"sensory"information"is"what"leads"to"the"negatively"biased"selfG evaluations"and"maladaptive"expectations"associated"with"depression"(Northoff," Wiebking,"Feinberg,"and"Panksepp,"2011)."The"self"versus"change"paradigm" described"here"may"be"particularly"useful"in"identifying"neural"markers"of" depression."Although"largely"unexplored"in"the"current"work,"the"binary" responses"for"each"trait"adjective"can"be"analyzed"to"identify"trials"on"which" participants"make"negative"selfGevaluations"for"qualities"that"they"also"identify"as" unlikely"to"change."These"behavioral"prevalence"and"neural"correlates"of"such" trials"may"help"to"identify"people"and"patterns"that"are"at"risk"for"depression"(or" perhaps"even"differentiate"healthy"and"pathological"selves"within"a"single"brain).# Concluding#remarks# "The"present"work"replicates"and"extend"previous"findings"concerning" broad"overlap"between"self"and"reward"in"the"more"precisely"constrained" contexts"of"personal"relevance"and"value"assignment"(Enzi"et"al.,"2009)."This" work"also"demonstrates"that"sharing"information"about"the"self"is"rewarding" (Tamir"and"Mitchell,"2012),"and"that"sharing"about"the"self"in"a"prospective" context"is"valuable."A"more"precise"quantification"of"the"various"people"and" 64! content"that"make"up"our"future"selves"may"lead"us"to"a"better"understanding"of" what"differentiates"among"the"value"assigned"to"more"personally"relevant," prospective"disclosures"to"friends"or"parents."It"may"also"help"us"to"more"broadly" understand"reward"and"value"in"terms"of"the"immediate"and"longGterm" consequences"associated"with"any"particular"aspect"of"the"self."" A"liberal"interpretation"of"these"results"suggests"that"we"differentially"value" the"selves"we"are"likely"to"become"in"specific"social"contexts."Collectively,"these" findings"suggest"that"we"may"be"able"to"more"precisely"quantify"self"in"terms"of"GG" well,"terms."Although"this"may"sound"tongue"in"cheek,"a"comprehensive"battery" that"assesses"the"trait"adjectives"in"the"self"versus"change"paradigm"with"respect" to"as"many"social"agents"as"can"reasonably"be"elicited"from"subjects"would" provide"a"highly"dimensional"problem"space"that"abstractGstate"based"algorithms" are"well"suited"for,"and"understanding"the"relationship"between"the"words"we"use" to"describe"ourselves"and"who"we"essentially"are"may"soon"be"not"only"an" excellent"question,"but"an"empirical"question"(Alfano,"2015)."Although"more" research"is"needed"to"extend"and"apply"these"findings,"the"work"carried"out"in" service"of"this"dissertation"provides"important"first"steps"as"well"as" methodological,"empirical,"and"theoretical"contributions"to"the"study"of"social" influences"on"the"self"in"the"brain.( " " 65! " REFERENCES(CITED( " Abraham,"A.,"Kaufmann,"C.,"Redlich,"R.,"Hermann,"A.,"Stark,"R.,"Stevens,"S.,"&" Hermann,"C."(2013)."SelfGreferential"and"anxietyGrelevant"information" processing"in"subclinical"social"anxiety:"an"fMRI"study."Brain#Imaging#and# Behavior,"7(1),"35G48." Abraham,"A.,"&"von"Kramon,"D.Y."(2009)."Reality"="relevance?"Insights"from" spontaneous"modulations"of"the"brain’s"default"network"when"telling"apart" reality"from"fiction."Frontiers#in#Human#Neuroscience,"4(3),"e4741." Alfano,"M."(2015)."How"one"becomes"what"one"is"called:"On"the"relation"between" traits"and"traitGterms"in"Nietzsche."Journal#of#Nietzsche#Studies,"46(1),"11G 11." AndrewsGHanna,"J.R.,"Saxe,"R.,"&"Yarkoni,"T."(2014)."Contributions"of"episodic" retrieval"and"mentalizing"to"autobiographical"thought:"evidence"from" functional"neuroimaging,"restingGstate"connectivity,"and"fMRI"metaG analyses.#Neuroimage,"91,"324G335."" " Bartra,"O.,"McGuire,"J.T.,"&"Kable,"J.W."(2013)."The"valuation"system:"A" coordinateGbased"metaGanalysis"of"BOLD"fMRI"experiments"examining" neural"correlates"of"subjective"value."Neuroimage,"76(1),"416G427." " Ballard,"K.,"&"Knutson,"B."(2009)."Dissociable"neural"representations"of"future" reward"magnitude"and"delay"during"temporal"discounting."NeuroImage," 45(1),"143–150."" " Behrens,"T.E.J.,"Hunt,"L.T.,"Woolrich,"M.W.,"&"Rushworth,"M.F.S."(2008)." Associative"learning"of"social"value."Nature,"456(7219),"245–9." Berkman,"E.T,"in"press." Berns,"G.S.,"Cohen,"J.D.,"&"Mintun,"M.A."(1997)."Brain"regions"responsive"to" novelty"in"the"absence"of"awareness."Science,"276,"1272G1275." Berridge,"K.C."(2012)."From"prediction"error"to"incentive"salience:"mesolimbic" computation"of"reward"motivation."European#Journal#of#Neuroscience," 35(7),"1124–1143." Buckner,"R.L."&"Carroll,"D.C."(2007)."SelfGprojection"and"the"brain.#Trends#in# Cognitive#Science,"11,"49G57." Bush,"R.R."&"Mosteller,"F."(1951)."A"mathematical"model"for"simple"learning." Psychological#Review,"58,"313–323." 66! Cacioppo,"J.T."&"Berntson,"G.G."(1992)."Social"psychological"contributions"to"the" decade"of"the"brain:"doctrine"of"multilevel"analysis.#American# Psychologist,"47(8),"1019G1028." Carter,"R.M.,"Bowling,"D.L.,"Reeck,"C.,"&"Huettel,"S.A."(2012)."A"distinct"role"of" the"temporalGparietal"junction"in"predicting"socially"guided"decisions." Science,"37(6090),"109G111." Coan,"J.A.,"Schaefer,"H.S.,"&"Davidson,"R.J."(2006)."Lending"a"hand:"social" regulation"of"the"neural"response"to"threat."Psychological#Science,"17(12)," 1032G1039." Cohen,"J.R.,"Asarnow,"R.F.,"Sabb,"F.W.,"Bilder,"R.M.,"Bookheimer,"S.Y.," Knowlton,"B.J.,"&"Poldrack,"R.A."(2010)."A"unique"adolescent"response"to" reward"prediction"errors."Nature#Neuroscience,"13(6),"669–71." " D’Argembeau,"A.,"Collette,"F.,"Van"der"Linden,"M.,"Laureys,"S.,"Del"Fiore,"G.," Degueldre,"C.,"Luxen,"A.,"&"Salmon,"E."(2005)."SelfGreferential"reflective" activity"and"its"relationship"with"rest:"a"PET"study,"NeuroImage,"25(2)," 616G624." " D'Argembeau,"A.,"Jedidi,"H.,"Balteau,"E.,"Bahri,"M.,"Phillips,"C.,"&"Salmon,"E." (2011)."Valuing"one’s"self:"medial"prefrontal"involvement"in"epistemic"and" emotive"investments"in"selfGviews.#Cerebral#Cortex,"22(3),"659G667."" " de"Greck,"M.,"Rotte,"R.,"Paus,"D.,"Moritz,"R.,"Thiemann,"U.,"Proesch,"U."Bruer," Moerth,"S.,"Templemann,"C.,"Bogerts,"B.,"&"Northoff,"G."(2008).#Is"our" Self"based"on"reward?"SelfGrelatedness"recruits"neural"activity"in"the" reward"system.#Neuroimage,"39(4),"2066G2075." " Delgado,"M.R.,"Nystrom,"L.E.,"Fissell,"C.,"Noll,"D.C.,"&"Julie,"A.F."(2000)." Tracking"the"hemodynamic"responses"to"reward"and"punishment"in"the" striatum."Journal#of#Neurophysiology,"84(6),"3072G3077."" " Den"Ouden,"H.E.M.,"Kok,"P.,"&"de"Lange,"F.P."(2012)."How"prediction"errors" shape"perception,"attention,"and"motivation."Frontiers#in#Psychology,"3," 548."" Dayan,"P.,"Niv,"Y.,"Seymour,"B.,"&"Daw,"N."(2006)."The"misbehavior"of"value"and" the"discipline"of"the"will."Neural#Networks,"19(8),"1153–1160.""""" Denny,"B.T.,"Kober,"H.,"Wager,"T.D.,"&"Ochsner,"K.N."(2012)."A"metaGanalysis"of" functional"neuroimaging"studies"of"selfGand"other"judgments"reveals"a" spatial"gradient"for"mentalizing"in"medial"prefrontal"cortex."Journal#of# Cognitive#Neuroscience,"24(8),"1742–1752." " 67! Enzi,"B.,"de"Greck,"M."de,"Prosch,"U.,"Tempelmann,"C.,"&"Northoff,"G."(2009)."Is" our"Self"nothing"but"reward?"Neuronal"overlap"and"distinction"between" reward"and"personal"relevance"and"its"relation"to"human"personality." PLoS#ONE,"4(12),"e8429G8429." Epstein,"S."(1973)."The"selfGconcept"revisited:"or"a"theory"of"a"theory."American# Psychologist,"28(5),"404G404." Fliessbach,"K.,"Weber,"B.,"Trautner,"P.,"Dohmen,"T.,"Sunde,"U.,"Elger,"C.E.,"&" Falk,"A."(2007)."Social"comparison"affects"rewardGrelated"brain"activity"in" the"human"ventral"striatum."Science,"318(5854),"1305–1308." Glimcher,"P.W.,"Dorris,"M.C.,"&"Bayer,"H.M."(2005)."Physiological"utility"theory" and"the"neuroeconomics"of"choice."Games#and#Economic#Behavior," 52(2),"213–256."" Glimcher,"P.W.,"&"Rustichini,"A."(2004)."Neuroeconomics:"the"consilience"of" brain"and"decision."Science,"306(5695),"447G452." Gorgolewski,"K.J.,"Varoquaux,"G.,"Rivera,"G.,"Schwarz,"Y.,"Ghosh,"S.S.," Maumet,"C.,"&"Margulies,"D.S."(2015)."NeuroVault.org:"a"webGbased" repository"for"collecting"and"sharing"unthresholded"statistical"maps"of"the" human"brain."Frontiers#in#Neuroinformatics,"9(8)."" Hampton,"A.N.,"Bossaerts,"P.,"&"O’Doherty,"J.P."(2006)."The"role"of"the" ventromedial"prefrontal"cortex"in"abstract"stateGbased"inference"during" decision"making"in"humans.#The#Journal#of#Neuroscience,"26(32)." Henson,"R."(2006)."Forward"inference"using"functional"neuroimaging:" dissociations"versus"associations."Trends#in#Cognitive#Sciences,"10(2)," 64G69." Kable,"J.W."&"Glimcher,"P.W."(2009)."The"neurobiology"of"decision:"consensus" and"controversy."Neuron,"63(6),"733G745." Kelley,"W.M.,"Macrae,"C.N.,"Wyland,"C.L.,"Caglar,"S.,"Inati,"S.,"&"Heatherton,"T." F."(2002)."Finding"the"self?"An"eventGrelated"fMRI"study.#Journal#of# Cognitive#Neuroscience,"14(5),"785G794." Krienen,"F.M.,"Tu,"P.C.,"&"Buckner,"R.L."(2010)."Clan"mentality:"evidence"that" the"medial"prefrontal"cortex"responds"to"close"others."The#Journal#of# Neuroscience,"30(41),"13906G13915." Izuma,"K.,"Saito,"D.N.,"&"Sadato,"N."(2008)."Processing"of"social"and"monetary" rewards"in"the"human"striatum."Neuron,"58(2),"284–94." James,"W."(1890)."The"principles"of"psychology."New"York:"H."Holt"&"Company." 68! Jankowski,"K.F.,"Moore,"W.E.,"Merchant,"J.S.,"Kahn,"L.E.,"&"Pfeifer,"J.H."(2014)." But"do"you"think"I’m"cool?"Developmental#Cognitive#Neuroscience,"8,"40G 54." Kao,"M.H.,"Madal,"A.,"Lazar,"N.,"&"Stufken,"J."(2009)."MultiGobjective"optimal" experimental"designs"for"eventGrelated"fMRI"studies."Neuroimage,"44(3)," 849G856." Kamin,"L.J."(1969)."Selective"association"and"conditioning"–"fundamental"issues" in"instrumental"learning"(eds."Mackintosh,"N.J."and"Honig,"W.K.)" Dalhousie"University"Press,"42G64." Kelly,"W.M.,"Macrae,"C.N.,"Wyland,"C.L.,"Caglar,"S."Inati,"S.,"&"Heatherton,"T.F." (2002)."Finding"the"self?"An"event"related"fMRI"study."Journal#of#Cognitive# Neuroscience,"5(14),"785G794." Klein,"S.B.,"Loftus,"J.,"&"Burton,"H.A."(1989)."Two"selfGreference"effects:"the" importance"of"distinguishing"between"selfGdescriptiveness"judgments"and" autobiographical"retrieval"in"selfGreferent"encoding.#Journal#of#Personality# and#Social#Psychology,"56,"853."" Krienen,"F.M.,"Tu,"P.,"&"Buckner,"R.L."(2010)."Clan"Mentality:"Evidence"That"the" Medial"Prefrontal"Cortex"Responds"to"Close"Others.#The#Journal#of# Neuroscience,"30(41),"13906G13915."" Louie,"K.,"Grattan,"L.,"&"Glimcher,"P.W."(2011)."ValueGbased"gain"control:" divisive"normalization"in"parietal"cortex."The#Journal#of#Neuroscience," 31(29),"10627–10639."" Lipsman,"N.,"Nakao,"T."Kanayama,"N.,"Krauss,"J.K.,"Anderson,"A.,"Giacobbe,"P.," Hamani,"C.,"Hutchison,"W.D.,"Dostrovsky,"J.O.,"Andres,"T.W.,"Lozano,"M.," &"Northoff,"G.,"(2014)."Neural"overlap"between"resting"state"and"selfG relevant"activity"in"human"subcallosal"cingulate"cortex"–"Single"unit" recording"in"an"intracranial"study."Cortex,"60,139G144." Marr,"D."(1970)."A"theory"for"cerebral"neocortex."Proceedings#of#the#Royal# Society:#Biological#Sciences,"176,"161G234." Montague,"P.R.,"&"Berns,"G.S."(2002)."Neural"economics"and"the"biological" substrates"of"valuation."Neuron,"36(2),"265G284." Montague,"P.R."(2007)."Neuroeconomics:"a"view"from"neuroscience."Functional# Neurology,"22(4),"219G234." Montague,"P.R.,"KingGCasas,"B.,"&"Cohen,"J.D."(2006)."Imaging"valuation" models"in"human"choice."Annual#Review#of#Neuroscience,"29,"417–448." Mitchell,"J.P.,"Macrae,"C.N.,"&"Banaji,"M.R."(2006)."Dissociable"medial"prefrontal" contributions"to"judgments"of"similar"and"dissimilar"others."Neuron,"50(4)," 655G663." 69! Moore,"W.E.,"Merchant,"J.S.,"Kahn,"L.E.,"&"Pfeifer,"J.H.""(2014)."“Like"me?”" Ventromedial"prefrontal"cortex"is"sensitive"to"both"personal"relevance"and" selfGsimilarity"during"social"comparisons."Social#Cognitive#and#Affective# Neuroscience,"9(4),"421G426." Moran,"J.M.,"Kelley,"W.M.,"&"Heatherton,"T.F."(2013)."What"can"the"organization" of"the"brain’s"default"mode"network"tell"us"about"selfGknowledge?"Frontiers# in#Human#Neuroscience,"7,"391." Mussweiler,"T."(2003)."Comparison"processes"in"social"judgment:"Mechanisms" and"consequences."Psychological#Review,"110(3),"472." Mussweiler,"T.,"Rüter,"K."&"Epstude,"K."(2004)."The"ups"and"downs"of"social" comparison:"mechanisms"of"assimilation"and"contrast."Journal#of# Personality#and#Social#Psychology,"87(6),"832G844." Nicolle,"A.,"KleinGFlugge,"M.,"Hunt,"L.,"Vlaev,"I.,"Dolan,"R.,"&"Behrens,"T."(2012)." An"agent"independent"axis"for"executed"and"modeled"choice"in"medial" prefrontal"cortex."Neuron,"75(6),"1114–1121." Northoff,"G.,"Qin,"P.,"&"Feinberg,"T."E."(2010)."Brain"imaging"of"the"selfG Conceptual,"anatomical"and"methodological"issues."Consciousness#and# Cognition,"20(1),"52G63" Northoff,"G."(2011)."Self"and"brain:"what"is"selfGrelated"processing?"Trends#in# Cognitive#Sciences,"15(5),"186G187." Northoff,"G."&"Hayes,"D."J."(2011)."Is"our"self"nothing"but"reward?"Biological# Psychiatry,"69(11),"1019–1025." Pagnoni,"G.,"Zink,"C."F.,"Montague,"P."R.,"&"Berns,"G."S."(2002)."Activity"in" human"ventral"striatum"locked"to"errors"of"reward"prediction."Nature# Neuroscience,"5(2),"97G98." Pfeifer,"J.H.,"C.L."Masten,"L.A."Borofsky,"M."Dapretto,"A.J."Fuligni,"&"M.D." Lieberman."(2009)"Neural"correlates"of"direct"and"reflected"selfGappraisals" in"adolescents"and"adults:"when"social"perspectiveGtaking"informs"selfG perception.#Child#Development,"80(4),"1016G1038." " Pfeifer,"J.H."&"Allen,"N.B."(2012)."Arrested"development?"Reconsidering"dualG systems"models"of"brain"function"in"adolescence"and"disorders."Trends#in# Cognitive#Sciences,"16(6)." Pfeifer,"J.H."&"Peake,"S.J."(2012)."SelfGdevelopment:"integrating"cognitive," socioemotional,"and"neuroimaging"perspectives."Developmental#Cognitive# Neuroscience,"2(1),"55–69." Poldrack,"R.A."(2006)."Can"cognitive"processes"be"inferred"from"neuroimaging" data?"Trends#in#Cognitive#Sciences,"10(2),"59G63."" 70! Poldrack,"R.A."(2011)."Inferring"mental"states"from"neuroimaging"data:"from" reverse"inference"to"largeGscale"decoding."Neuron,"72(5)."" Potenza,"M."(2008)."The"neurobiology"of"pathological"gambling"and"drug" addiction:"an"overview"and"new"findings."Philosophical#Transactions#of#the# Royal#Society:#Biological#Sciences,"363(1507),"3181–3189." Rangel,"A.,"Camerer,"C.,"&"Montague,"P.R."(2008)."A"framework"for"studying"the" neurobiology"of"valueGbased"decision"making."Nature#Reviews# Neuroscience,"9(7),"545G556." Rescorla,"R.A."&"Wagner,"A.R."(1972)."A"theory"of"Pavlovian"conditioning:" Variations"in"the"effectiveness"of"reinforcement"and"nonGreinforcement." Classical"Conditioning"II:"Current"Research"and"Theory."(Eds"Black,"A.H.," Prokasy,"W.F.)"New"York:"Appleton"Century"Crofts." Roy,"M.,"Shohamy,"D.,"&"Wager,"T."D."(2012)."Ventromedial"prefrontalG subcortical"systems"and"the"generation"of"affective"meaning."Trends#in# Cognitive#Science,"6(3),"147G56." Schacter,"D.L.,"Addis,"D.R.,"&"Buckner,"R.L."(2007)."Remembering"the"past"to" imagine"the"future:"the"prospective"brain."Nature#Reviews#Neuroscience,"# 8,"657G661." Schultz,"W.,"Dayan,"P.,"&"Montague,"P."R."(1997)."A"neural"substrate"of" prediction"and"reward."Science,"275(5306),"1593–1599." Sutton,"R."S."&"Barto,"A."G."(1998)."Reinforcement"Learning:"An"Introduction," MIT"Press,"Cambridge,"Massachusetts." Symons,"C.S."&"Johnson,"B.T."(1997)."The"selfGreference"effect"in"memory:"a" metaGanalysis."Psychological#Bulletin,"121(3),"371." Tamir,"D."I."&"Mitchell,"J."P."(2010)."Neural"correlates"of"anchoringGandG adjustment"during"mentalizing."Proceedings#of#the#National#Academy#of# Sciences#USA,"107(24),"10827G32." Tamir,"D."I."&"Mitchell,"J."P."(2012)."Disclosing"information"about"the"self"is" intrinsically"rewarding."Proceedings#of#the#National#Academy#of#Sciences# USA,"109(21),"8038G8043." Van"Der"Meer,"L.,"Costafreda,"S.,"Aleman,"A.,"&"David,"A.S."(2010)."SelfG reflection"and"the"brain:"A"theoretical"review"and"metaGanalysis"of" neuroimaging"studies"with"implications"for"schizophrenia."Neuroscience# and#Biobehavioral#Reviews,"34(6),"935G946." Van"Overwalle,"F."(2009)."Social"cognition"and"the"brain:"A"metaGanalysis." Human#Brain#Mapping,"30(3)"820G858." 71! Weisberg,"D.S.,"Keil,"F.C.,"Goodstein,"J.,"Rawson,"E.,"&"Gray,"J.R."(2008)."The" seductive"allure"of"neuroscience"explanations."Journal#of#Cognitive# Neuroscience,"20(3),"470–7.""""""" WhitfieldGGabrieli,"S."&"Ford,"J.S."(2011)."Default"mode"network"activity"and" connectivity"in"psychopathology."Annual#Review#of#Clinical#Psychology,"8," 49G76."""""""""" Yarkoni,"T.,"Poldrack,"R.A.,"Nichols,"T.E.,"Van"Essen,"D.C.,"&"Wager,"T.D." (2011)."LargeGscale"automated"synthesis"of"human"functional" neuroimaging"data."Nature#Methods,"8,"665–670."