↓ Skip to main content

Neuroanatomy accounts for age-related changes in risk preferences

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
41 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Neuroanatomy accounts for age-related changes in risk preferences
Published in
Nature Communications, December 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms13822
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. Grubb, Agnieszka Tymula, Sharon Gilaie-Dotan, Paul W. Glimcher, Ifat Levy

Abstract

Many decisions involve uncertainty, or 'risk', regarding potential outcomes, and substantial empirical evidence has demonstrated that human aging is associated with diminished tolerance for risky rewards. Grey matter volume in a region of right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC) is predictive of preferences for risky rewards in young adults, with less grey matter volume indicating decreased tolerance for risk. That grey matter loss in parietal regions is a part of healthy aging suggests that diminished rPPC grey matter volume may have a role in modulating risk preferences in older adults. Here we report evidence for this hypothesis and show that age-related declines in rPPC grey matter volume better account for age-related changes in risk preferences than does age per se. These results provide a basis for understanding the neural mechanisms that mediate risky choice and a glimpse into the neurodevelopmental dynamics that impact decision-making in an aging population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 27%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 31%
Neuroscience 21 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 14 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 388. 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 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#33,866
of 15,257,997 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#460
of 28,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,786
of 385,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#77
of 3,001 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,257,997 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 48.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 385,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,001 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.