Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29204798›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2018

Predicting risk decisions in a modified Balloon Analogue Risk Task: Conventional and single-trial ERP analyses.

Ruolei Gu, Dandan Zhang, Yi Luo, Hongyan Wang, Lucas S Broster

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Time Pressure Affects the Risk Preference and Outcome Evaluation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Ruolei GuCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, China.
Dandan ZhangInstitute of Affective and Social Neuroscience, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China. zhangdd05@gmail.com.
Yi LuoState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Hongyan WangCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, China.
Lucas S BrosterDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

TRAINING THE NEXT GENERATION OF MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCHERSR25MH060482 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DANIEL H MATHALON, Susan M. Voglmaier · 2000 to 2026
$5.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH060482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Event-related potential (ERP) has the potential to reveal the temporal neurophysiological dynamics of risk decision-making, but this potential has not been fully explored in previous studies. When predicting risk decision with ERPs, most studies focus on between-trial analysis that reflects feedback learning, while within-trial analysis that could directly link option assessment with behavioral output has been largely ignored. Suitable task design is crucial for applying within-trial prediction. In this study, we used a modified version of the classic Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). In each trial of the task, participants made multiple rounds of decisions between a risky option (pump up the balloon) and a safe option (cash out). Behavioral results show that as the level of economic risk increased, participants were less willing to make a risky decision and also needed a longer response time to do so. In general, the ERP results showed distinct characteristics compared with previous findings based on between-trial prediction, particularly about the role of the P1 component. Specifically, both the P1 (amplitude and latency) and P3 (amplitude) components evoked by current outcomes predicted subsequent decisions. We suggest that these findings indicate the importance of selective attention (indexed by the P1) and motivational functions (indexed by the P3), which may help clarify the cognitive mechanism of risk decision-making. The theoretical significance of these findings is discussed.

Indexed as

Risk-TakingAdolescentAdultBehaviorDecision MakingElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFeedbackFemaleHumansLearningMaleNeuropsychological TestsYoung AdultBalloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)Decision-makingEvent-related potential (ERP)P1 componentP3 componentRisk preference

Identifiers

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.