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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Dissociable Neural Processes Underlying Risky Decisions for Self Versus Other
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2013.00015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daehyun Jung, Sunhae Sul, Hackjin Kim |
| Abstract |
Previous neuroimaging studies on decision making have mainly focused on decisions on behalf of oneself. Considering that people often make decisions on behalf of others, it is intriguing that there is little neurobiological evidence on how decisions for others differ from those for oneself. The present study directly compared risky decisions for self with those for another person using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants were asked to perform a gambling task on behalf of themselves (decision-for-self condition) or another person (decision-for-other condition) while in the scanner. Their task was to choose between a low-risk option (i.e., win or lose 10 points) and a high-risk option (i.e., win or lose 90 points) with variable levels of winning probability. Compared with choices regarding others, those regarding oneself were more risk-averse at lower winning probabilities and more risk-seeking at higher winning probabilities, perhaps due to stronger affective process during risky decisions for oneself compared with those for other. The brain-activation pattern changed according to the target, such that reward-related regions were more active in the decision-for-self condition than in the decision-for-other condition, whereas brain regions related to the theory of mind (ToM) showed greater activation in the decision-for-other condition than in the decision-for-self condition. Parametric modulation analysis using individual decision models revealed that activation of the amygdala and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC) were associated with value computations for oneself and for another, respectively, during risky financial decisions. The results of the present study suggest that decisions for oneself and for other may recruit fundamentally distinct neural processes, which can be mainly characterized as dominant affective/impulsive and cognitive/regulatory processes, respectively. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 35% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 62 | 45% |
| Neuroscience | 17 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 May 2013.
All research outputs
#4,514,402
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,521
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,169
of 288,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#77
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 288,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 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 68% of its contemporaries.