Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40007578›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Neuroforecasting reveals generalizable components of choice.

Alexander Genevsky, Lester C Tong, Brian Knutson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alexander GenevskyRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1048-3256
Lester C TongDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 93405, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1930-9572
Brian KnutsonDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 93405, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7669-426X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate forecasts of population-level behavior critically inform institutional choices and public policy. While neuroforecasting research suggests that measurements of group brain activity can improve forecasting accuracy relative to behavior, less is known about how and when brain activity can effectively improve out-of-sample forecasts. We analyzed neural and behavioral data collected in two experiments to forecast choice in more vs. less demographically representative aggregate internet markets in order to test when forecasts based on brain activity generalize better than behavior. In both experiments, while the accuracy of market forecasts based on behavior varied as a function of sample representativeness, market forecasts based on brain activity remained significant regardless of sample representativeness. These findings are consistent with the notion that brain activity associated with early affective responses can generalize across individuals to index aggregate choice more broadly than downstream behavior. Thus, brain activity from limited samples may reveal generalizable components of choice that can improve market forecasts. These findings inform theory regarding which components of individual choice generalize to improve market forecasts and provide insights into mechanisms that underlie the effective application of neuroforecasting.

Indexed as

brainFMRIforecastinggeneralizabilityrepresentativeness

Identifiers

PMID40007578
PMCPMC11852258

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.