Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39006480›Full record

ArticleiScience2024

Decomposing loss aversion from a single neural signal.

Ruining Wang, Xiaoyi Wang, Michael L Platt, Feng Sheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Ruining WangSchool of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Xiaoyi WangSchool of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Michael L PlattWharton Neuroscience Initiative, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Feng ShengSchool of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People often display stronger aversion to losses than appetite for equivalent gains, a widespread phenomenon known as loss aversion. The prevailing theory attributes loss aversion to a valuation bias that amplifies losses relative to gains. An alternative account attributes loss aversion to a response bias that avoids choices that might result in loss. By modeling the temporal dynamics of scalp electrical activity during decisions to accept or reject gambles within a sequential sampling framework, we decomposed valuation bias and response bias from a single event-related neural signal, the P3. Specifically, we found valuation bias manifested as larger sensitivity of P3 to losses than gains, which was localizable to reward-related brain regions. By contrast, response bias manifested as larger P3 preceding gamble acceptance than rejection and was localizable to motor cortex. Our study reveals the dissociable neural biomarkers of response bias and valuation bias underpinning loss-averse decisions.

Indexed as

Biological sciencesCognitive neuroscienceNeuroscience

Identifiers

PMID39006480
PMCPMC11245989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.