↓ Skip to main content

Reduced Risk-Taking following Disruption of the Intraparietal Sulcus

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Reduced Risk-Taking following Disruption of the Intraparietal Sulcus
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00588
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher G. Coutlee, Anastasia Kiyonaga, Franziska M. Korb, Scott A. Huettel, Tobias Egner

Abstract

Decision makers frequently encounter opportunities to pursue great gains-assuming they are willing to accept greater risks. Previous neuroimaging studies have shown that activity in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and the inferior frontal junction (IFJ) are associated with individual preferences for economic risk ("known unknowns," e.g., a 50% chance of winning $5) and ambiguity ("unknown unknowns," e.g., an unknown chance of winning $5), respectively. Whether processing in these regions causally enables risk-taking for individual decisions, however, remains unknown. To examine this question, we assessed the decision to engage in risk-taking after disrupting neural processing in the IPS and IFJ of healthy human participants using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. While stimulation of the IFJ resulted in general slowing of decision times, disrupting neural processing within the IPS selectively suppressed risk-taking, biasing choices toward certain options featuring both lower risks and lower expected rewards. Our results are the first to demonstrate the necessity of intact IPS function for choosing uncertain outcomes when faced with calculable risks and rewards. Engagement of IPS during decision making may support a willingness to accept uncertain outcomes for a chance to obtain greater gains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 28%
Neuroscience 10 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,353,540
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,502
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,627
of 422,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#30
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 422,346 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.