Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26065910›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2015

Novelty seeking is related to individual risk preference and brain activation associated with risk prediction during decision making.

Ying Wang, Ying Liu, Lizhuang Yang, Feng Gu, Xiaoming Li, Rujing Zha, Zhengde Wei, Yakun Pei, Peng Zhang, Yifeng Zhou and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Novelty Seeking and Drug Addiction in Humans and Animals: From Behavior to Molecules.Journal of neuroimmune pharmacology : the official journal of the Society on NeuroImmune Pharmacology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ying WangChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Ying LiuProvincial Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui 230001, China.
Lizhuang YangChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Feng GuChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Xiaoming LiChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Rujing ZhaChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Zhengde WeiChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Yakun PeiChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Peng ZhangState Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China.
Yifeng ZhouChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.
Xiaochu ZhangChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory of Brain Function and Disease, and School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, 230026, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novelty seeking (NS) is a personality trait reflecting excitement in response to novel stimuli. High NS is usually a predictor of risky behaviour such as drug abuse. However, the relationships between NS and risk-related cognitive processes, including individual risk preference and the brain activation associated with risk prediction, remain elusive. In this fMRI study, participants completed the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire to measure NS and performed a probabilistic decision making task. Using a mathematical model, we estimated individual risk preference. Brain regions associated with risk prediction were determined via fMRI. The NS score showed a positive correlation with risk preference and a negative correlation with the activation elicited by risk prediction in the right posterior insula (r-PI), left anterior insula (l-AI), right striatum (r-striatum) and supplementary motor area (SMA). Within these brain regions, only the activation associated with risk prediction in the r-PI showed a correlation with NS after controlling for the effect of risk preference. Resting-state functional connectivity between the r-PI and r-striatum/l-AI was negatively correlated with NS. Our results suggest that high NS may be associated with less aversion to risk and that the r-PI plays an important role in relating risk prediction to NS.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingRisk-TakingAdultBrainDecision MakingExploratory BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleRadiography

Identifiers

PMID26065910
PMCPMC4464254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.