Cited by 289Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorGambling Behavior and Treatments

Activity in human reward-sensitive brain areas is strongly context dependent

Open access
Nieuwenhuis, Sander, Heslenfeld, Dirk J., Alting von Geusau, Niels J., Mars, Rogier B., Holroyd, Clay B., Yeung, Nick·2005·NeuroImage

Abstract

Functional neuroimaging research in humans has identified a number of brain areas that are activated by the delivery of primary and secondary reinforcers. The present study investigated how activity in these reward-sensitive regions is modulated by the context in which rewards and punishments are experienced. Fourteen healthy volunteers were scanned during the performance of a simple monetary gambling task that involved a "win" condition (in which the possible outcomes were a large monetary gain, a small gain, or no gain of money) and a "lose" condition (in which the possible outcomes were a large monetary loss, a small loss, or no loss of money). We observed reward-sensitive activity in a number of brain areas previously implicated in reward processing, including the striatum, prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, and inferior parietal lobule. Critically, activity in these reward-sensitive areas was highly sensitive to the range of possible outcomes from which an outcome was selected. In particular, these regions were activated to a comparable degree by the best outcomes in each condition-a large gain in the win condition and no loss of money in the lose condition-despite the large difference in the objective value of these outcomes. In addition, some reward-sensitive brain areas showed a binary instead of graded sensitivity to the magnitude of the outcomes from each distribution. These results provide important evidence regarding the way in which the brain scales the motivational value of events by the context in which these events occur.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.043

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies have shown that outcome processing is highly sensitive to the range of possible outcomes from which the final outcome is selected.

    “Previous studies have shown that outcome processing is highly sensitive to the range of possible outcomes from which the final outcome is selected (Akitsuki et al., 2003; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005).”

    From Distinct neural representations of placebo and nocebo effects (2015) · cites this paper as Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 289

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Talairach, J., Tournoux, P., 1988. Co-planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain: An Approach to Medical Cerebral Imaging. Thieme: Stuttgart, Germany.

Authors
Nieuwenhuis, S., Heslenfeld, D. J., Alting von Geusau, N. J., Mars, R. B., Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Nieuwenhuis, Sander
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
1302-1309
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2402578595
Cited by
289
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
reward processing, context sensitivity, outcome magnitude, motivational value, striatum, prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, inferior parietal lobule, punishment
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Reward

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review