ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
The Neurobase of ambiguity loss aversion about decision making.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Financial Risk Aversion Among Older Black and White Adults.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our daily decision-making, there are two confusing problems: risk and ambiguity. Many psychological studies and neuroscience studies have shown that the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is an important neural mechanism for modulating the human brain in risk and ambiguity decision-making, especially the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to reveal the causal relationship between the DLPFC and ambiguity decision-making. We design two experimental tasks involving ambiguity to gain and ambiguity to loss. The results of our study show that there is a significant effect on left DLPFC stimulation about ambiguity to loss, there is an insignificant effect on left DLPFC stimulation about ambiguity to gain, and there is an insignificant effect on right DLPFC stimulation about ambiguity to gain and ambiguity to loss. This result indicates that people are more sensitive to ambiguity loss than ambiguity gain. Further analysis found that the degree of participants' attitudes toward ambiguity loss who received anodal simulation was lower than that who received sham stimulation across the left DLPFC, which means that the subjects had a strong ambiguity loss aversion after the participants received the anodal simulation of the left DLPFC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.