Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40717182›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

"Rationality" enhancement through anodal tDCS over the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex.

Jonathan Slater, Michal Lavidor, Eliran Halali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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.

Jonathan SlaterPsychology Department, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel.
Michal LavidorPsychology Department, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel.
Eliran HalaliPsychology Department, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel. eliran.halali@biu.ac.il.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental findings challenge classical economic theories by demonstrating that people are not solely self-interested but also have social preferences, such as fairness and reciprocity, that often conflict with self-interest motives. An ongoing debate examines whether social preferences arise automatically (requiring deliberate actions to ensure economic self-interest) or require cognitive control (implying that self-interest is the default motive and must be inhibited). Two distinct cognitive-control brain regions, each with potentially unique inhibitory functions, have been implicated in managing this conflict: the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC) and the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (rVLPFC). Despite extensive neuromodulation research on the rDLPFC, the role of the rVLPFC remains unexplored. To address this gap, we examined the effect of anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) over the rVLPFC on responders' behavior in the ultimatum game. Stimulated participants accepted unfair offers significantly more often than those in the control (sham) group. This effect was not influenced by whether offers were made intentionally by a human partner or randomly by a computer but was absent when participants played on behalf of another random individual. These findings establish the causal role of the rVLPFC in promoting "rational" self-interested behavior in social exchange situations. We discuss theoretical implications.

Indexed as

Dorsolateral Prefrontal CortexPrefrontal CortexTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotivationYoung AdultDecision neuroscienceNeuroeconomicsNeuromodulationSocial preferencesUltimatum game

Identifiers

PMID40717182
PMCPMC12301455

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.