| Title |
Predicting risk decisions in a modified Balloon Analogue Risk Task: Conventional and single-trial ERP analyses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-017-0555-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruolei Gu, Dandan Zhang, Yi Luo, Hongyan Wang, Lucas S. Broster |
| Abstract |
Event-related potential (ERP) has the potential to reveal the temporal neurophysiological dynamics of risk decision-making, but this potential has not been fully explored in previous studies. When predicting risk decision with ERPs, most studies focus on between-trial analysis that reflects feedback learning, while within-trial analysis that could directly link option assessment with behavioral output has been largely ignored. Suitable task design is crucial for applying within-trial prediction. In this study, we used a modified version of the classic Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). In each trial of the task, participants made multiple rounds of decisions between a risky option (pump up the balloon) and a safe option (cash out). Behavioral results show that as the level of economic risk increased, participants were less willing to make a risky decision and also needed a longer response time to do so. In general, the ERP results showed distinct characteristics compared with previous findings based on between-trial prediction, particularly about the role of the P1 component. Specifically, both the P1 (amplitude and latency) and P3 (amplitude) components evoked by current outcomes predicted subsequent decisions. We suggest that these findings indicate the importance of selective attention (indexed by the P1) and motivational functions (indexed by the P3), which may help clarify the cognitive mechanism of risk decision-making. The theoretical significance of these findings is discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 42% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,512,854
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#846
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,660
of 446,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.