↓ Skip to main content

Responsibility modulates the neural correlates of regret during the sequential risk-taking task

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Responsibility modulates the neural correlates of regret during the sequential risk-taking task
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-017-5165-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanghuang Niu, Li Zheng, Xuemei Cheng, Peng Sun, Fanzhi Anita Zhou, Xiuyan Guo

Abstract

Responsibility is a necessary prerequisite in the experience of regret. The present fMRI study investigated the modulation of responsibility on the neural correlates of regret during a sequential risk-taking task. Participants were asked to open a series of boxes consecutively and decided when to stop. Each box contained a reward, except for one containing a devil to zero participant's gain in the trial. Once participants stopped, both collected gains and missed chances were revealed. We manipulated responsibility by setting two different contexts. In the Self (high responsibility) context, participants opened boxes and decided when to stop by themselves. In the Computer (low responsibility) context, a computer program opened boxes and decided when to stop for participants. Before each trial, participants were required to decide whether it would be a Self or a Computer context. Behaviorally, participants felt less regret (more relief) for gain outcome and more regret for the loss outcome in the high-responsibility context than low responsibility context. At the neural level, when experiencing a gain, high-responsibility trials were characterized by stronger activation in mPFC, pgACC, mOFC, and striatum with decreasing number of missed chances relative to low responsibility trials. When experiencing a loss, low responsibility trials were associated with stronger activation in dACC and bilateral insula than high-responsibility trials. Conversely, during a loss, high-responsibility trials showed more striatum activity than low responsibility trials. These results highlighted the sensitivity of the frontal region, striatum, and insula to changes in level of responsibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 43%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Philosophy 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2018.
All research outputs
#12,867,456
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,463
of 3,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,153
of 442,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#18
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.