↓ Skip to main content

Discriminating Formal Representations of Risk in Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Inferior Frontal Gyrus

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Discriminating Formal Representations of Risk in Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Inferior Frontal Gyrus
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00553
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rena Fukunaga, John R. Purcell, Joshua W. Brown

Abstract

Considerable debate persists around the definition of risk. Depending on the area of study, the concept of risk may be defined as the variance of the possible outcomes, the probability of a loss, or a combination of the loss probability and its maximum possible loss. Mounting evidence suggests the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), including the surrounding medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and the anterior insula/inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) are key neural regions that represent perceived risks. Yet it remains unclear which of these formalisms best accounts for the pattern of activation in brain regions representing risk, and it is also difficult to disentangle risk from value, as both contribute to perceived utility. To adjudicate among the possible definitions, we used fMRI with a novel gambling task that orthogonalized the variance, loss probability, and maximum possible loss among the risky options, while maintaining a constant expected value across all monetary gambles to isolate the impact of risk rather than value. Here we show that when expected value is controlled for ACC and IFG activation reflect variance, but neither loss probability nor maximum possible loss. Across subjects, variance-related activation within the ACC correlates indirectly with risk aversion. Our results highlight the variance of the prospective outcomes as a formal representation of risk that is reflected both in brain activity and behavior, thus suggestive of a stronger link among formal economic theories of financial risk, naturalistic risk taking, and neural representations of risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 35%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Mathematics 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 13 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,766,545
of 25,550,333 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#904
of 11,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,572
of 341,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#27
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,550,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 341,980 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.