ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2022
Domain-specific neural substrates underlie the framing effect.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial: Exploring the framing effect on maladaptive behaviors: neural mechanisms and applications.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- From Emotion to Action: How Framed Sustainability Messages Trigger Physiological Reactions and Influence Consumer Choices.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Framing as a mechanism to overcome the temptation of bad habits.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human decision making can be influenced by presenting different options with positive or negative connotations. This phenomenon is termed the framing effect. Neuroeconomic studies have found that the amygdala plays a significant role in the framing effect, as it incorporates emotional (or intuitive) information into the decision process, which may lead to bias or irrationality. However, previous studies have focused only on the gain domain, in which the initial state is positive (appetitive). The mechanisms underlying the framing effect in the loss (aversive) domain are less well understood, despite their importance for evolution and survival. In this study, we first replicated the findings of De Martino et al. on the framing effect in the gain domain. We then searched for similarities and differences between the gain and loss domains using a similar experimental design combined with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Behaviorally, the participants showed comparable effects for both frame types, suggesting a frame-indiscriminate decision bias. In contrast, at the neuronal level, we found that the amygdala specifically represented the framing effect in the gain domain, and its connectivity to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex was positively modulated by the framing bias, similar to the findings of De Martino et al. However, the striatum was found to represent the framing effect in the loss domain. Striatal connectivity to the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex was similarly affected by the framing bias, suggesting domain-specific neural substrates. Our study emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between gain and loss domains when studying decision making, and highlights the governing role of the cortical-striatal-limbic network in the framing effect.
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.