Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36195765›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

A neuronal prospect theory model in the brain reward circuitry.

Yuri Imaizumi, Agnieszka Tymula, Yasuhiro Tsubo, Masayuki Matsumoto, Hiroshi Yamada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. 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. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Yuri ImaizumiMedical Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tenno-dai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8577, Japan.
Agnieszka TymulaSchool of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0521-8477
Yasuhiro TsuboCollege of Information Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1 Noji-Higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga, 525-8577, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7013-9409
Masayuki MatsumotoDivision of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tenno-dai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8577, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0832-1565
Hiroshi YamadaDivision of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tenno-dai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8577, Japan. h-yamada@md.tsukuba.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-8155-8847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospect theory, arguably the most prominent theory of choice, is an obvious candidate for neural valuation models. How the activity of individual neurons, a possible computational unit, obeys prospect theory remains unknown. Here, we show, with theoretical accuracy equivalent to that of human neuroimaging studies, that single-neuron activity in four core reward-related cortical and subcortical regions represents the subjective valuation of risky gambles in monkeys. The activity of individual neurons in monkeys passively viewing a lottery reflects the desirability of probabilistic rewards parameterized as a multiplicative combination of utility and probability weighting functions, as in the prospect theory framework. The diverse patterns of valuation signals were not localized but distributed throughout most parts of the reward circuitry. A network model aggregating these signals reconstructed the risk preferences and subjective probability weighting revealed by the animals' choices. Thus, distributed neural coding explains the computation of subjective valuations under risk.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRisk-TakingAnimalsBrainChoice BehaviorHumansNeuronsReward

Identifiers

PMID36195765
PMCPMC9532451

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.