Cited by 214Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Predicting events of varying probability: uncertainty investigated by fMRI

Open access
Volz, Kirsten G, Schubotz, Ricarda I, von Cramon, D.Yves·2003·NeuroImage

Abstract

Many everyday life predictions rely on the experience and memory of event frequencies, i.e., natural samplings. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural substrates of prediction under varying uncertainty based on a natural sampling approach. The study focused particularly on a comparison with other types of externally attributed uncertainty, such as guessing, and on the frontomedian cortex, which is known to be engaged in many types of decisions under uncertainty. On the basis of preceding stimulus cues, participants predicted events that occurred with probabilities ranging from p = 0.6 to p = 1.0. In contrast to certain predictions in a control task, predictions under uncertainty elicited activations within a posterior frontomedian area (mesial BA 8) and within a set of subcortical areas which are known to subserve dopaminergic modulations. The parametric analysis revealed that activation within the mesial BA 8 significantly increased with increasing uncertainty. A comparison with other types of uncertainty indicates that frontomedian correlates of frequency-based prediction appear to be comparable with those induced in long-term stimulus-response adaptation processes such as hypothesis testing, in contrast to those engaged in short-term error processing such as guessing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00122-8

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Volz, K. G., Schubotz, R. I., & von Cramon, D. Y.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Volz, Kirsten G
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
271-280
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101401693
Cited by
214
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
prediction under uncertainty, natural sampling, dopaminergic modulation, guessing, hypothesis testing, error processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Arousal, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Oxygen Consumption, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Probability Learning, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Mental Recall, Reference Values, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

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