It has been proposed that choice utility exhibits an inverted U-shape as a function of the number of options in the choice set. However, most researchers have so far only focused on the “physically extant” number of options in the set while disregarding the more important psychological factor, the “subjective” number of options worth considering to choose—that is, the size of the consideration set. To explore this previously ignored aspect, we examined how variations in the size of a consideration set can produce different affective consequences after making choices and investigated the underlying neural mechanism using fMRI. After rating their preferences for art posters, participants made a choice from a presented set and then reported on their level of satisfaction with their choice and the level of difficulty experienced in choosing it. Our behavioral results demonstrated that enlarged assortment set can lead to greater choice satisfaction only when increases in both consideration set size and preference contrast are involved. Moreover, choice difficulty is determined based on the size of an individual's consideration set rather than on the size of the assortment set, and it decreases linearly as a function of the level of contrast among alternatives. The neuroimaging analysis of choice-making revealed that subjective consideration set size was encoded in the striatum, the dACC, and the insula. In addition, the striatum also represented variations in choice satisfaction resulting from alterations in the size of consideration sets, whereas a common neural specificity for choice difficulty and consideration set size was shown in the dACC. These results have theoretical and practical importance in that it is one of the first studies investigating the influence of the psychological attributes of choice sets on the value-based decision-making process.

Context memory retrieval tasks often implicate the left ventrolateral pFC (LVPFC) during functional imaging. Although this region has been linked to controlled semantic processing of materials, it may also play a more general role in selecting among competing episodic representations during demanding retrieval tasks. Thus, the LVPFC response during context memory retrieval may reflect either semantic processing of memoranda or adjudication of interfering episodic memories evoked by memoranda. To distinguish between these hypotheses, we contrasted context and item memory retrieval tasks for meaningful and nonmeaningful memoranda using fMRI. Increased LVPFC activation during context compared with item memory only occurred for meaningful memory probes. In contrast, even demanding context retrieval for nonmeaningful materials failed to engage LVPFC. These data demonstrate that the activation previously seen during episodic tasks likely reflects semantic processing of the probes during episodic retrieval attempt, not the selection among competing elicited episodic representations. Posterior middle temporal gyrus and the body/head of the caudate demonstrated the same selective response as LVPFC, although resting state functional connectivity analyses suggested that these two regions likely shared separate functional relationships with the LVPFC.

Although lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) is clearly involved in decision-making, competing functional characterizations exist. One characterization posits that activation reflects the need to select among competing representations. In contrast, recent fMRI research suggests that activation is driven by the criterial classification of representations, even with minimal competition. To adjudicate between these hypotheses, we used event-related fMRI and contrasted tasks that required different numbers of criterial classifications prior to response in both perceptual and memory domains. Additionally, we manipulated the level of interstimulus competition by increasing the number of probes. Experiment 1 demonstrated that LPFC activation tracked the number of intermediate classifications during trials yet was insensitive to the number of competing probes and the behavioral decline accompanying competition. Furthermore, Experiment 2 demonstrated equivalent increases in LPFC activation for a task requiring two overt criterial classifications (independent classification) and one requiring two covert criterial classifications prior to the single overt response (same–different judgment). As found in Experiment 1, both tasks showed greater activation than a judgment requiring only one classification act (forced choice). These data indicate that LPFC responses reflect the number of executed criterial classifications or judgments, independent of the number of competing stimuli and the overt response demands of the decision task.

Functional neuroimaging comparisons of context and item memory frequently implicate the left prefrontal cortex (PFC) during the recovery of contextually specific memories. However, because cues and probes are often presented simultaneously, this activity could reflect operations involved in planning retrieval or instead reflect later operations dependent upon the memory probes themselves, such as evaluation of probe-evoked recollections. More importantly, planning-related activity, wherein subjects reinstate details outlining the nature of desired remembrances, should occur in response to contextual memory cues even before retrieval probes are available. Using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging, we tested this by dissociating cue- from probe-related activity during context memory for pictures. Cues forewarning contextual memory demands yielded more activity than those forewarning item memory in the left lateral precentral gyrus, midline superior frontal gyrus, and right frontopolar cortex. Thus, these anticipatory, cue-based activations indicated whether upcoming probe decisions would require contextually specific memories or not. In contrast, the left dorsolateral/midventrolateral and anterior ventrolateral PFC areas did not show differential activity until the probes were actually presented, demonstrating greater activity for context than for item memory probes. Direct comparison of proximal left PFC regions demonstrated qualitatively different response profiles across cue versus probe periods for lateral precentral versus dorsolateral regions. These results potentially isolate contextual memory-planning-related processes from subsequent processes such as the evaluation of recollections, which are necessarily dependent on individual probe features. They also demonstrate that contextual remembering recruits multiple, functionally distinct PFC processes.