Test-retest reliability of decisions under risk with outcome evaluation: evidence from behavioral and event-related potentials (ERPs) measures in 2 monetary gambling tasks.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Cerebral cortex Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1093/cercor/bhaf058
Jia Jin, Qin Xiao, Yuxuan Liu, Ting Xu, Qiang Shen
{"title":"Test-retest reliability of decisions under risk with outcome evaluation: evidence from behavioral and event-related potentials (ERPs) measures in 2 monetary gambling tasks.","authors":"Jia Jin, Qin Xiao, Yuxuan Liu, Ting Xu, Qiang Shen","doi":"10.1093/cercor/bhaf058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The balance between potential gains and losses under risk, the stability of risk propensity, the associated reward processing, and the prediction of subsequent risk behaviors over time have become increasingly important topics in recent years. In this study, we asked participants to carry out 2 risk tasks with outcome evaluation-the monetary gambling task and mixed lottery task twice, with simultaneous recording of behavioral and electroencephalography data. Regarding risk behavior, we observed both individual-specific risk attitudes and outcome-contingent risky inclination following a loss outcome, which remained stable across sessions. In terms of event-related potential (ERP) results, low outcomes, compared to high outcomes, induced a larger feedback-related negativity, which was modulated by the magnitude of the outcome. Similarly, high outcomes evoked a larger deflection of the P300 compared to low outcomes, with P300 amplitude also being sensitive to outcome magnitude. Intraclass correlation coefficient analyses indicated that both the feedback-related negativity and P300 exhibited modest to good test-retest reliability across both tasks. Regarding choice prediction, we found that neural responses-especially those following a loss outcome-predicted subsequent risk-taking behavior at the single-trial level for both tasks. Therefore, this study extends our understanding of the reliability of risky preferences in gain-loss trade-offs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9715,"journal":{"name":"Cerebral cortex","volume":"35 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cerebral cortex","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaf058","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The balance between potential gains and losses under risk, the stability of risk propensity, the associated reward processing, and the prediction of subsequent risk behaviors over time have become increasingly important topics in recent years. In this study, we asked participants to carry out 2 risk tasks with outcome evaluation-the monetary gambling task and mixed lottery task twice, with simultaneous recording of behavioral and electroencephalography data. Regarding risk behavior, we observed both individual-specific risk attitudes and outcome-contingent risky inclination following a loss outcome, which remained stable across sessions. In terms of event-related potential (ERP) results, low outcomes, compared to high outcomes, induced a larger feedback-related negativity, which was modulated by the magnitude of the outcome. Similarly, high outcomes evoked a larger deflection of the P300 compared to low outcomes, with P300 amplitude also being sensitive to outcome magnitude. Intraclass correlation coefficient analyses indicated that both the feedback-related negativity and P300 exhibited modest to good test-retest reliability across both tasks. Regarding choice prediction, we found that neural responses-especially those following a loss outcome-predicted subsequent risk-taking behavior at the single-trial level for both tasks. Therefore, this study extends our understanding of the reliability of risky preferences in gain-loss trade-offs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结果评估下风险决策的重测信度:来自2个金钱赌博任务中行为和事件相关电位(ERPs)测量的证据。
近年来,风险下潜在收益与损失的平衡、风险倾向的稳定性、相关的奖励处理以及对后续风险行为的预测已成为越来越重要的话题。在本研究中,我们要求被试分别进行两次带有结果评估的风险任务——货币赌博任务和混合彩票任务,同时记录行为和脑电图数据。关于风险行为,我们观察了个体特定的风险态度和损失结果后的结果偶然风险倾向,这在整个过程中保持稳定。在事件相关电位(ERP)结果方面,与高结果相比,低结果诱导了更大的反馈相关负性,这是由结果的大小调节的。同样,与低结果相比,高结果诱发了更大的P300偏转,P300振幅也对结果大小敏感。班级内相关系数分析表明,反馈相关负性和P300在两个任务中都表现出中等到良好的重测信度。关于选择预测,我们发现神经反应——尤其是那些在失败结果之后的反应——在单次试验水平上预测了两个任务随后的冒险行为。因此,本研究扩展了我们对风险偏好在得失权衡中的可靠性的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cerebral cortex
Cerebral cortex 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.10%
发文量
510
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Cerebral Cortex publishes papers on the development, organization, plasticity, and function of the cerebral cortex, including the hippocampus. Studies with clear relevance to the cerebral cortex, such as the thalamocortical relationship or cortico-subcortical interactions, are also included. The journal is multidisciplinary and covers the large variety of modern neurobiological and neuropsychological techniques, including anatomy, biochemistry, molecular neurobiology, electrophysiology, behavior, artificial intelligence, and theoretical modeling. In addition to research articles, special features such as brief reviews, book reviews, and commentaries are included.
期刊最新文献
Prenatal experience of greater neighborhood disadvantage is associated with altered fetal volumetric brain growth in utero. Anterior cingulate folding pattern is altered in autism spectrum disorder. The role of age in the relationship between brain structure and cognition: moderator or confound? Ephaptic coupling and power fluctuations in depression. The representation of speech conversations in the human auditory cortex: role of social and semantic factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1