ArticleCommunications biology2024
Neural reward system reflects individual value comparison strategy in cost-benefit decisions.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time and amount attributes exert distinct neural influences on gain and loss evaluation.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Ambiguity preferences in intertemporal and risky choice: A large-scale study using drift-diffusion modelling.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A core assumption in decision neuroscience is that individuals decide between options by comparing option-specific subjective reward values. Psychological accounts challenge this view and suggest that decisions are better explained by comparisons between choice attributes than by comparisons between option-specific values, casting doubts on the interpretation of activation in the neural reward system as subjective value signals. Here, we provide neuroimaging and pharmacological evidence that value-related neural activity follows the value comparison strategy employed by an individual on the psychological level. Neural model comparisons reveal that activation in the striatum, rather than generally reflecting attribute-wise or option-wise value comparisons, reflects the value comparison strategy that provides the best explanation for an individual's choice behavior. Strikingly, manipulating activation in the dopaminergic reward system reveals that dopamine antagonism counteracts the engagement in an individual's dominant value comparison strategy. Together, our findings provide evidence for the biological plausibility of psychological accounts of decision making and emphasize the importance of neural model comparisons to prevent misinterpretations of brain activation.
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.