Cited by 112Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Flexible combination of reward information across primates

Open access
Farashahi, Shiva, Donahue, Christopher H., Hayden, Benjamin Y., Lee, Daeyeol, Soltani, Alireza·2019·Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract

A fundamental but rarely contested assumption in economics and neuroeconomics is that decision-makers compute subjective values of risky options by multiplying functions of reward probability and magnitude. By contrast, an additive strategy for valuation allows flexible combination of reward information required in uncertain or changing environments. We hypothesized that the level of uncertainty in the reward environment should determine the strategy used for valuation and choice. To test this hypothesis, we examined choice between risky options in humans and rhesus macaques across three tasks with different levels of uncertainty. We found that whereas humans and monkeys adopted a multiplicative strategy under risk when probabilities are known, both species spontaneously adopted an additive strategy under uncertainty when probabilities must be learned. Additionally, the level of volatility influenced relative weighting of certain and uncertain reward information, and this was reflected in the encoding of reward magnitude by neurons in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

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 · 10.1038/s41562-019-0714-3

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?

  • Higher perceptual rating in the current trial was associated with higher expectation rating in the next trial with a different cue type.

    “Interestingly, higher perceptual rating in the current trial was associated with higher expectation rating in the next trial with a different cue type (SI Appendix, Figs. S8–S10) which suggests: 1) the existence of a carryover effect (61–63) from the previous to the current trial independent of the cue, or 2) a general learning of stimulus history.”

    From Social information creates self-fulfilling prophecies in judgments of pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Methods section on human tasks says participants used outcomes from preceding trials to choose between reward targets, but it does not report perceptual or expectation ratings. Searches for the stated cross-trial association and for a cue-independent carryover effect found no passage addressing either point; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 28 · Cited by 112

Authors
Farashahi, S., Donahue, C. H., Hayden, B. Y., Lee, D., & Soltani, A.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Gladstone Institutes (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Soltani, Alireza
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2019-09-09
Volume
3
Issue
11
Pages
1215-1224
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2973034539
Cited by
112
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6
FWCI
10.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R01 DA029330, R01 MH108629)
  • National Science Foundation (EPSCoR Award 1632738)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
subjective value, decision making under risk, reward probability, reward magnitude, uncertainty, probability learning, volatility, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, rhesus monkeys, cross-species comparison, neuroeconomics
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Animals, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Macaca mulatta, Male, Probability, Reward, Risk, Comprehension, Uncertainty, Young Adult

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