↓ Skip to main content

From Bad to Worse: Striatal Coding of the Relative Value of Painful Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
From Bad to Worse: Striatal Coding of the Relative Value of Painful Decisions
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2010
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2010.00176
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Brooks, V. S. Chandrasekhar Pammi, Charles Noussair, C. Monica Capra, Jan B. Engelmann, Gregory S. Berns

Abstract

The majority of decision-related research has focused on how the brain computes decisions over outcomes that are positive in expectation. However, much less is known about how the brain integrates information when all possible outcomes in a decision are negative. To study decision-making over negative outcomes, we used fMRI along with a task in which participants had to accept or reject 50/50 lotteries that could result in more or fewer electric shocks compared to a reference amount. We hypothesized that behaviorally, participants would treat fewer shocks from the reference amount as a gain, and more shocks from the reference amount as a loss. Furthermore, we hypothesized that this would be reflected by a greater BOLD response to the prospect of fewer shocks in regions typically associated with gain, including the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex. The behavioral data suggest that participants in our study viewed all outcomes as losses, despite our attempt to induce a status quo. We find that the ventral striatum showed an increase in BOLD response to better potential gambles (i.e., fewer expected shocks). This lends evidence to the idea that the ventral striatum is not solely responsible for reward processing but that it might also signal the relative value of an expected outcome or action, regardless of whether the outcome is entirely appetitive or aversive. We also find a greater response to worse gambles in regions previously associated with aversive valuation, suggesting an opposing but simultaneous valuation signal to that conveyed by the striatum.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Ukraine 1 1%
Unknown 85 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 32%
Researcher 19 20%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 45%
Neuroscience 16 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 8 9%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 January 2011.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,137
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,053
of 172,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#35
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 172,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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.