Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29109242›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2017

Why Do Irrelevant Alternatives Matter? An fMRI-TMS Study of Context-Dependent Preferences.

Hui-Kuan Chung, Tomas Sjöström, Hsin-Ju Lee, Yi-Ta Lu, Fu-Yun Tsuo, Tzai-Shuen Chen, Chi-Fu Chang, Chi-Hung Juan, Wen-Jui Kuo, Chen-Ying Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Single-Dimensional Human Brain Signals for Two-Dimensional Economic Choice Options.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  6. Experimentally revealed stochastic preferences for multicomponent choice options.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. The Consumer Contextual Decision-Making Model.Frontiers in psychology · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
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

10 authors.

Hui-Kuan ChungDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York 10003.ORCID 0000-0002-6030-1767
Tomas SjöströmDepartment of Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901.
Hsin-Ju LeeInstitute of Neuroscience, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, 11221, Taiwan.
Yi-Ta LuDepartment of Economics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 10617, Taiwan.
Fu-Yun TsuoDepartment of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 10617, Taiwan.
Tzai-Shuen ChenDepartment of Economics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, and.ORCID 0000-0002-7904-1811
Chi-Fu ChangInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central University, Taoyuan, 32001, Taiwan.
Chi-Hung JuanInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central University, Taoyuan, 32001, Taiwan.
Wen-Jui KuoInstitute of Neuroscience, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, 11221, Taiwan, chenying@ntu.edu.tw wjkuo@ym.edu.tw.
Chen-Ying HuangDepartment of Economics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 10617, Taiwan, chenying@ntu.edu.tw wjkuo@ym.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both humans and animals are known to exhibit a violation of rationality known as "decoy effect": introducing an irrelevant option (a decoy) can influence choices among other (relevant) options. Exactly how and why decoys trigger this effect is not known. It may be an example of fast heuristic decision-making, which is adaptive in natural environments, but may lead to biased choices in certain markets or experiments. We used fMRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation to investigate the neural underpinning of the decoy effect of both sexes. The left ventral striatum was more active when the chosen option dominated the decoy. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the presence of a decoy option influences the valuation of other options, making valuation context-dependent even when choices appear fully rational. Consistent with the idea that control is recruited to prevent heuristics from producing biased choices, the right inferior frontal gyrus, often implicated in inhibiting prepotent responses, connected more strongly with the striatum when subjects successfully overrode the decoy effect and made unbiased choices. This is further supported by our transcranial magnetic stimulation experiment: subjects whose right inferior frontal gyrus was temporarily disrupted made biased choices more often than a control group. Our results suggest that the neural basis of the decoy effect could be the context-dependent activation of the valuation area. But the differential connectivity from the frontal area may indicate how deliberate control monitors and corrects errors and biases in decision-making.

Indexed as

BrainChoice BehaviorDecision MakingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung Adultcontext dependencedecoy effectinhibitory control

Identifiers

PMID29109242
PMCPMC6705742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.