Modulating prefrontal control in humans reveals distinct pathways to competitive success and collective waste

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) on cognitive enhancement

Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) has been used to focally regulate excitability of neural cortex over the past decade - however there is little consensus on the generalizability of effects reported in individual studies. Many studies use small sample sizes (N < 30), and there is a considerable amount of methodological heterogeneity in application of the stimulation itself. This systematic meta-analysis aims to consolidate the extant literature and determine if up-regulatory theta-burst stimulation reliably enhances cognition through measurable behavior. Results show that iTBS - when compared to suitable control conditions - may enhance cognition when outlier studies are removed, but also that there is a significant amount of heterogeneity across studies. Significant contributors to between-study heterogeneity include location of stimulation and method of navigation to the stimulation site. Surprisingly, the type of cognitive domain investigated was not a significant contributor of heterogeneity. The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that standardization of iTBS is urgent and necessary to determine if neuroenhancement of particular cognitive faculties are reliable and robust, and measurable through observable behavior.

Political games of attack and defence

Political conflicts often revolve around changing versus defending a status quo. We propose to capture the dynamics between proponents and opponents of political change in terms of an asymmetric game of attack and defence with its equilibrium in mixed strategies. Formal analyses generate predictions about effort expended on revising and protecting the status quo, the form and function of false signalling and cheap talk, how power differences impact conflict intensity and the likelihood of status quo revision. Laboratory experiments on the neurocognitive and hormonal foundations of attack and defence reveal that out-of-equilibrium investments in attack emerge because of non-selfish preferences, limited capacity to compute costs and benefits and optimistic beliefs about the chances of winning from one's rival. We conclude with implications for the likelihood of political change and inertia, and discuss the role of ideology in political games of attack and defence.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques to Reduce Violence Proneness by Interfering in Anger and Irritability

The field of neurocriminology has proposed several treatments (e.g., pharmacological, brain surgery, androgen-deprivation therapy, neurofeedback) to reduce violence proneness, but unfortunately, their effectiveness has been limited due to their side-effects. Therefore, it is necessary to explore alternative techniques to improve patients’ behavioural regulation with minimal undesirable effects. In this regard, non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, which are based on applying changing magnetic fields or electric currents to interfere with cortical excitability, have revealed their usefulness in alleviating the symptomatology of several mental disorders. However, to our knowledge, there are no reviews that assess whether these techniques are useful for reducing violence proneness. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria using the following databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, Dialnet, Psicodoc, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library. We initially identified 3746 entries, and eventually included 56 publications. Most of the studies were unanimous in concluding that the application of these techniques over the prefrontal cortex (PFC) was not sufficient to promote anger and irritability reductions in euthymic individuals of both genders. Nevertheless, the application of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, especially transcranial direct current stimulation, over the right PFC seemed to reduce violent reactions in these individuals by interfering with the interpretation of the unfavourable situations (e.g., threating signals) or inner states that evoked anger. In antisocial and pathological populations, the conclusions were provided by a few pilot studies with important methodological weaknesses. The main conclusion of these studies was that bilateral stimulation of the PFC satisfactorily reduced anger and irritability only in inmates, patients with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), people who suffered a closed-head injury, and agitated patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover, combining these techniques with risperidone considerably reduced aggressiveness in these patients. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious about the benefits of these techniques to control anger, due the methodological weaknesses of these studies. Nonetheless, they offer valuable opportunities to prevent violence by designing new treatments combining brain stimulation with current strategies, such as psychotherapy and psychopharmacology, in order to promote lasting changes.

Neurocognitive Underpinnings of Aggressive Predation in Economic Contests

Competitions are part and parcel of daily life and require people to invest time and energy to gain advantage over others and to avoid (the risk of) falling behind. Whereas the behavioral mechanisms underlying competition are well documented, its neurocognitive underpinnings remain poorly understood. We addressed this using neuroimaging and computational modeling of individual investment decisions aimed at exploiting one's counterpart ("attack") or at protecting against exploitation by one's counterpart ("defense"). Analyses revealed that during attack relative to defense (i) individuals invest less and are less successful; (ii) computations of expected reward are strategically more sophisticated (reasoning level k = 4 vs. k = 3 during defense); (iii) ventral striatum activity tracks reward prediction errors; (iv) risk prediction errors were not correlated with neural activity in either ROI or whole-brain analyses; and (v) successful exploitation correlated with neural activity in the bilateral ventral striatum, left OFC, left anterior insula, left TPJ, and lateral occipital cortex. We conclude that, in economic contests, coming out ahead (vs. not falling behind) involves sophisticated strategic reasoning that engages both reward and value computation areas and areas associated with theory of mind.

Asymmetric conflict: Structures, strategies, and settlement

Our target article modeled conflict within and between groups as an asymmetric game of strategy and developed a framework to explain the evolved neurobiological, psychological, and sociocultural mechanisms underlying attack and defense. Twenty-seven commentaries add insights from diverse disciplines, such as animal biology, evolutionary game theory, human neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, and political science, that collectively extend and supplement this model in three ways. Here we draw attention to the superordinate structure of attack and defense, and its subordinate means to meet the end of status quo maintenance versus change, and we discuss (1) how variations in conflict structure and power disparities between antagonists can impact strategy selection and behavior during attack and defense; (2) how the positions of attack and defense emerge endogenously and are subject to rhetoric and propaganda; and (3) how psychological and economic interventions can transform attacker-defender conflicts into coordination games that allow mutual gains and dispute resolution.

More subjects are required for ventrolateral than dorsolateral prefrontal TMS because of intolerability and potential drop-out

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the human lateral prefrontal cortex, particularly the ventral region, often causes considerable discomfort to subjects. To date, in contrast to abundant literature on stimulations to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex has been less frequently stimulated, partly because some subjects are intolerable of stimulation to the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. To predict the additional number of subjects required for the stimulation of the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortices, 20 young healthy subjects reported two evaluation scores: the discomfort caused by TMS and the resulting intolerability to complete the TMS experiments. Single-pulse stimulation (SPS) or theta-burst stimulation (TBS) was administered to the lateral prefrontal cortex. The high-resolution extended 10–20 system was used to provide accurate estimation of the voxelwise scores. The discomfort ratings with the SPS and TBS were relatively higher in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex than those in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Both the SPS and TBS elicited maximal discomfort at the stimulation position F8. The SPS and TBS to F8 under the standard TMS protocols were intolerable for approximately one half (11 and 10, respectively) of the subjects. The intolerability was further calculated for all voxels in the lateral prefrontal cortex, which enabled us to estimate the additional number of subjects required for specific target areas. These results suggest that prior knowledge of subjects’ discomfort during stimulation of the lateral prefrontal cortex can be of practical use in the experimental planning of the appropriate number of recruited subjects and provide the database for the probability of intolerability that can be used to predict the additional number of subjects.

Oxytocin promotes coordinated out-group attack during intergroup conflict in humans

Intergroup conflict contributes to human discrimination and violence, but persists because individuals make costly contributions to their group’s fighting capacity. Yet how group members effectively coordinate their contributions during intergroup conflict remains poorly understood. Here we examine the role of oxytocin for (the coordination of) contributions to group attack or defense in a multi-round, real-time feedback economic contest. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study with N=480 males in an Intergroup Attacker-Defender contest game, we found that oxytocin reduced contributions to attack and over time increased attacker’s within-group coordination of contributions. However, rather than becoming peaceful, attackers given oxytocin better tracked their rival’s historical defense and coordinated their contributions into well-timed and hence more profitable attacks. Our results reveal coordination of contributions as a critical component of successful attacks and subscribe to the possibility that oxytocin enables individuals to contribute to in-group efficiency and prosperity even when doing so implies outsiders are excluded or harmed.

Editorial note: This article has been through an editorial process in which the authors decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review. The Reviewing Editor's assessment is that all the issues have been addressed (see decision letter).

Conflict between groups is a recurring theme in human history. We tend to form social bonds with others who share the same characteristics as ourselves, whether that is nationality, ethnicity, or supporting the same football team. Individuals that belong to the same group as us comprise our ‘in-group’. All other individuals make up our ‘out-groups’. Competition and conflict with out-groups – from benign sporting rivalry to warfare – has a key role in shaping human cultures and societies.

Such conflict often requires individuals to act in ways that harm their own self-interests. It also requires them to coordinate their actions with other members of their in-group. How does our biology drive this behavior? When small groups prepare for conflict with other groups, they often perform social bonding routines and rituals. These trigger the brain to release a hormone called oxytocin into the bloodstream. Known as the ‘love hormone’, oxytocin helps promote pair bonding as well as social bonding with in-group members. Studies in both humans and monkeys show that boosting oxytocin levels artificially via a nasal spray makes individuals more trusting and cooperative.

But Zhang et al. now show that the ‘love hormone’ also helps individuals launch more coordinated ‘attacks’ on out-groups. In a study involving a multi-round economic contest game between groups of ‘attackers’ and ‘defenders’, oxytocin did not make attackers less aggressive. Instead it enabled them to better coordinate their attacks. Each contest game involved three attackers individually contributing money to a group pool to outbid the other group and win more money, and three defenders making similar contributions to their own group pool to defend it against the rivals’ attacks and protect themselves from losing all their money. Attackers who used an oxytocin nasal spray were better at tracking their rivals' defensive strategies than attackers whose nasal spray contained a placebo. Under the influence of oxytocin, the attackers timed their strikes to occur when their rivals were vulnerable. Over time, the oxytocin users became better at coordinating their behavior with other members of their in-group. This resulted in more earnings.

Success – and even survival – in intergroup conflicts depends on how willing individuals are to make contributions that incur a personal cost. They also depend on how well individuals coordinate their contributions. Social strategies, such as leading by example, and neurobiological mechanisms such as oxytocin can both help achieve the coordination needed to exploit out-group rivals.

Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups

Conflict can profoundly affect individuals and their groups. Oftentimes, conflict involves a clash between one side seeking change and increased gains through victory and the other side defending the status quo and protecting against loss and defeat. However, theory and empirical research largely neglected these conflicts between attackers and defenders, and the strategic, social, and psychological consequences of attack and defense remain poorly understood. To fill this void, we model (1) the clashing of attack and defense as games of strategy and reveal that (2) attack benefits from mismatching its target's level of defense, whereas defense benefits from matching the attacker's competitiveness. This suggests that (3) attack recruits neuroendocrine pathways underlying behavioral activation and overconfidence, whereas defense invokes neural networks for behavioral inhibition, vigilant scanning, and hostile attributions; and that (4) people invest less in attack than defense, and attack often fails. Finally, we propose that (5) in intergroup conflict, out-group attack needs institutional arrangements that motivate and coordinate collective action, whereas in-group defense benefits from endogenously emerging in-group identification. We discuss how games of attack and defense may have shaped human capacities for prosociality and aggression, and how third parties can regulate such conflicts and reduce their waste.

In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failures in intergroup conflict

Intergroup conflict persists when and because individuals make costly contributions to their group's fighting capacity, but how groups organize contributions into effective collective action remains poorly understood. Here we distinguish between contributions aimed at subordinating out-groups (out-group aggression) from those aimed at defending the in-group against possible out-group aggression (in-group defense). We conducted two experiments in which three-person aggressor groups confronted three-person defender groups in a multiround contest game (n = 276; 92 aggressor-defender contests). Individuals received an endowment from which they could contribute to their group's fighting capacity. Contributions were always wasted, but when the aggressor group's fighting capacity exceeded that of the defender group, the aggressor group acquired the defender group's remaining resources (otherwise, individuals on both sides were left with the remainders of their endowment). In-group defense appeared stronger and better coordinated than out-group aggression, and defender groups survived roughly 70% of the attacks. This low success rate for aggressor groups mirrored that of group-hunting predators such as wolves and chimpanzees (n = 1,382 cases), hostile takeovers in industry (n = 1,637 cases), and interstate conflicts (n = 2,586). Furthermore, whereas peer punishment increased out-group aggression more than in-group defense without affecting success rates (Exp. 1), sequential (vs. simultaneous) decision-making increased coordination of collective action for out-group aggression, doubling the aggressor's success rate (Exp. 2). The relatively high success rate of in-group defense suggests evolutionary and cultural pressures may have favored capacities for cooperation and coordination when the group goal is to defend, rather than to expand, dominate, and exploit.