CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 444Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion

Open access
De Martino, Benedetto, Camerer, Colin F., Adolphs, Ralph·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0910230107PMC PMC2840433
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Losses are a possibility in many risky decisions, and organisms have evolved mechanisms to evaluate and avoid them. Laboratory and field evidence suggests that people often avoid risks with losses even when they might earn a substantially larger gain, a behavioral preference termed “loss aversion.” The cautionary brake on behavior known to rely on the amygdala is a plausible candidate mechanism for loss aversion, yet evidence for this idea has so far not been found. We studied two rare individuals with focal bilateral amygdala lesions using a series of experimental economics tasks. To measure individual sensitivity to financial losses we asked participants to play a variety of monetary gambles with possible gains and losses. Although both participants retained a normal ability to respond to changes in the gambles’ expected value and risk, they showed a dramatic reduction in loss aversion compared to matched controls. The findings suggest that the amygdala plays a key role in generating loss aversion by inhibiting actions with potentially deleterious outcomes.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Two rare individuals with focal bilateral amygdala lesions showed a dramatic reduction in monetary loss aversion while retaining normal sensitivity to reward magnitude and risk. The authors conclude that the amygdala plays a necessary role in generating loss aversion, possibly by signaling prospective losses and inhibiting actions with potentially deleterious outcomes.

Key findings

  • Both amygdala-lesioned participants were far more willing than matched controls to accept mixed gain–loss gambles, with significantly lower risk premiums: S.M. t(5) = 7.76, P < 0.001; A.P. t(5) = 13.57, P < 0.001.
  • Loss aversion parameter λ was 0.76 for S.M. versus a control mean of 1.52 (SEM = 0.19), and 1.06 for A.P. versus a control mean of 1.76 (SEM = 0.12); A.P. was essentially loss neutral, while S.M. showed mild loss-seeking behavior.
  • The lesion participants retained monotonic sensitivity to reward magnitude and disliked increased outcome variance no differently from controls; in a gain-only “double or nothing” task, acceptance rates did not differ significantly from controls (S.M. t(5) = 1.16, P > 0.1; A.P. t(5) = 0.65, P > 0.1).
  • The authors interpret the pattern as evidence that the amygdala is necessary for loss aversion, with loss aversion and general risk aversion depending on partly separable neural systems.

Methods

  • Case study of two women with focal bilateral amygdala lesions caused by Urbach-Wiethe disease: S.M., 43, with lesions encompassing the entire amygdala plus subjacent white matter and anterior entorhinal cortex; A.P., 23, with lesions confined to the amygdala and occupying roughly 50% of each amygdala’s volume. Each was compared with a separate group of 6 healthy controls matched on age, gender, income, and education (12 controls total).
  • Loss aversion task: participants received a $50 endowment and completed 256 trials (four 64-trial sessions) of accept/reject choices for 50/50 mixed gambles with gains from +$20 to +$50 and losses from −$20 to −$50 in $2 increments, covering all 16 × 16 gain–loss pairs. Choices were analyzed with logistic regression on expected value to estimate risk premiums; bootstrap procedures generated 500 pseudosubjects, and independent two-sample two-tailed t tests compared lesion participants with controls.
  • Additional analyses: variance sensitivity was assessed using the orthogonality of expected value and outcome variance in the symmetric design; a separate gain-only “double or nothing” task used sure amounts of $2 or multiples of $5 from $5 to $50, with 11 trials each presented 8 times (88 trials total).

Limitations

  • Stated: the sample size of lesion participants is n = 2, which is common in neuropsychological studies because focal bilateral amygdala lesions are very rare, but this limits generalization; lesion studies remain one of the few methods for investigating causal brain–behavior relationships in humans.
  • Stated: differences between S.M. and A.P. and their respective control groups may be due to sociodemographic factors such as income, education, and aging, and S.M.’s more extensive amygdala damage may also partly account for the difference between the two lesion participants.
  • Evident: the study has very small samples (two lesion participants and six controls per group), and the proposed amygdala-to-striatum mechanism is not directly tested here; the paper notes that future functional connectivity studies and fMRI in lesion participants could test this idea.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0910230107

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Both amygdala-lesioned participants showed a strikingly higher willingness to accept gambles than their matched control groups.

    “Both amygdala-lesioned participants showed a strikingly higher willingness to accept gambles than their matched control groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Each amygdala-lesioned participant had a significantly lower risk premium than her matched control group (S.M. t(5)=7.76, P<0.001; A.P. t(5)=13.57, P<0.001).

    “This procedure showed that each amygdala-lesioned participant had a significantly lower risk premium than her matched control group, S.M. t(5) = 7.76 P < 0.001; A.P. t(5) = 13.57; P < 0.001”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    In the gain-only double-or-nothing task, there was no significant difference in acceptance rate between each lesion participant and that participant's matched controls (S.M. t(5)=1.16, P>0.1; A.P. t(5)=0.65, P>0.1).

    “In this task, there was no significant difference in the acceptance rate of each lesion participant and that participant’s matched controls S.M. t(5) = 1.16, P > 0.1; A.P. t(5) = 0.65, P > 0.1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    The two participants have rare focal bilateral lesions of the amygdala.

    “The two participants have rare focal bilateral lesions of the amygdala (Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The amygdala computes a signal of prospective loss that is integrated with other information to guide behavioral choice.

    “Our account of the findings proposes that the amygdala computes a signal of prospective loss that is integrated with other information to guide behavioral choice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Neither amygdala-lesioned participant exhibits loss aversion; S.M. had λ=0.76 and A.P. had λ=1.06, whereas control means were 1.52 and 1.76.

    “This analysis yielded λ = 0.76 for S.M., and a mean λ for the S.M. control group of 1.52 (SEM = 0.19). For A.P., λ = 1.06 whereas the mean λ for the A.P. control group was 1.76 (SEM = 0.12).”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “The values of λ estimated by our analysis show that neither amygdala-lesioned participant exhibits loss aversion whereas the control participant λ estimates are close to those found in previous studies (17, 18).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [17] Sokol-Hessner P, et al. Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(13):5035–5040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806761106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science. 2007;315:515–518. doi: 10.1126/science.1134239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Both lesion participants exhibited a marked dislike for increasing outcome variance, given a constant level of expected value, and their dislike for increased variance was no different from that of the controls.

    “Critically, both lesion participants exhibited a marked dislike for increasing outcome variance, given a constant level of expected value. This was manifested in a reduction in gamble acceptance rates as a function of increases in the gamble’s variance (Fig. 6). Most importantly, their dislike for increased variance was no different from that of the controls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Both participants retained a monotonic sensitivity to reward magnitude, preferring larger gains and smaller losses.

    “Critically, both participants retained a monotonic sensitivity to reward magnitude (i.e., they preferred larger gains and smaller losses).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Loss aversion has been well documented in the laboratory and in many field settings, including high-stakes game show decisions, financial markets, politics, trade policy for declining industries, rate of organ donation for transplant cases, and monkey behavior.

    “Loss aversion has been well documented in the laboratory and in many field settings (2), including high-stakes game show decisions (3), financial markets (4), politics (5), trade policy for declining industries (6), rate of organ donation for transplant cases (7) and has also been evident in monkey behavior (8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39:341–350. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Post T, Van den Assem M, Baltussen G, Thaler R. Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. Am Econ Rev. 2008;98:38–71. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Haigh M, List J. Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. J Finance. 2005;60:523–534. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Each amygdala-lesioned participant was compared to a separate group of 6 healthy controls (12 total) matched on age, gender, monetary income, and education.

    “The two participants were each compared to a separate group of 6 healthy controls (12 in total) matched to that participant on age, gender, monetary income, and education.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    S.M.'s lesions encompass the entire amygdala plus subjacent white matter and anterior entorhinal cortex; A.P.'s lesions are entirely confined to the amygdala and encompass roughly 50% of the amygdala.

    “The first participant, S.M., is a 43-year-old woman with a high school education whose lesions encompass the entire amygdala plus subjacent white matter and anterior entorhinal cortex. The second participant, A.P., is a 23-year-old woman with a college education whose lesions are entirely confined to the amygdala and encompass roughly 50% of the amygdala.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Loss aversion appears to increase with affective enrichment of hedonic consumer goods and more generally with emotional attachment.

    “loss aversion appears to increase with affective enrichment of “hedonic” consumer goods (e.g., music CDs versus computer disks) (11) and more generally with emotional attachment (12).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [11] Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res. 2000;37:60–71. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Ariely D, Huber J, Wertenbroch K. When do losses loom larger than gains? J Mark Res. 2005;42:134–138. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Across many studies, losses typically loom about 1.5-2 times as large as gains.

    “Across many studies, losses typically loom about 1.5–2 times as large as gains: for instance, people will avoid gambles in which they are equally likely to either lose $10 or win $15, even though the expected value of the gamble is positive ($2.50).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–292. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Recent theories of amygdala function argue that the amygdala subserves an abstract function in detecting uncertainty or ambiguity in the environment and in triggering arousal and vigilance as a consequence.

    “recent theories of amygdala function argue that the amygdala subserves an abstract function in detecting uncertainty (13) or ambiguity (14) in the environment and in triggering arousal and vigilance as a consequence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13] Whalen PJ. The uncertainty of it all. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11:499–500. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] Hsu M, Bhatt M, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Camerer CF. Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science. 2005;310:1680–1683. doi: 10.1126/science.1115327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Increased cognitive control of the autonomic emotional responses normally elicited by losses significantly reduced the susceptibility to loss aversion.

    “a recent study found that increased cognitive control of the autonomic emotional responses normally elicited by losses significantly reduced the susceptibility to loss aversion (17).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Sokol-Hessner P, et al. Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(13):5035–5040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806761106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Amygdala-lesioned monkeys tend to approach stimuli that healthy monkeys avoid.

    “a tendency for amygdala-lesioned monkeys to approach stimuli that healthy monkeys avoid (15)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Mason WA, Capitanio JP, Machado CJ, Mendoza SP, Amaral DG. Amygdalectomy and responsiveness to novelty in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Generality and individual consistency of effects. Emotion. 2006;6:73–81. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The amygdala is implicated in processing fear and threat, as well as in anticipation and experience of monetary loss.

    “an idea motivated by a large literature implicating this brain structure in processing fear and threat (9), as well as in anticipation and experience of monetary loss (10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [9] Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio AR. Fear and the human amygdala. J Neurosci. 1995;15:5879–5891. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-09-05879.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Kahn I, et al. The role of the amygdala in signaling prospective outcome of choice. Neuron. 2002;33:983–994. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00626-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    A recent fMRI study did not find amygdala activation associated with loss aversion.

    “a recent fMRI study (18 ) did not find amygdala activation associated with loss aversion”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science. 2007;315:515–518. doi: 10.1126/science.1134239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    An initial negative anticipatory response is generated in the amygdala, influences the striatal computation of the gamble's net value, and consequently leads to behavioral loss aversion through striatal mediation of instrumental behavior.

    “A plausible explanation that reconciles our findings with the previous fMRI study is that an initial negative anticipatory response is generated in the amygdala, influences the striatal computation of the gamble’s net value, and consequently leads to behavioral loss aversion through striatal mediation of instrumental behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Methods

    Lesion studies are one of the few methods in human neuroscience to investigate causal relationships between brain function and behavior.

    “lesion studies are one of the few methods in human neuroscience to investigate causal relationships between brain function and behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    The payment procedure of randomly selecting one trial and paying according to actual decision ensures that participants evaluate each gamble independently.

    “this is a standard procedure used in behavioral economics, which ensures that participants evaluate each gamble independently.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Lesions to the amygdala result in a reduced input to downstream regions that compute value through integrating across multiple inputs.

    “More specifically, lesions to the amygdala would result in a reduced input to downstream regions that compute value through integrating across multiple inputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § Methods

    The sample size of lesion participants (n=2) is common in neuropsychological studies; individuals with focal brain lesions such as bilateral amygdala lesions are very rare.

    “Note that the sample size of lesion participants (n = 2) is common in neuropsychological studies—indeed, many famous studies used only a single participant. The reason is that individuals with focal brain lesions such as the bilateral amygdala lesions here are very rare.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    The bootstrap procedure for control groups was more conservative than trial-level bootstrap because it preserves intersubject variability.

    “This procedure (i.e., bootstrapping at individuals level) was chosen because it is a more conservative procedure than the bootstrap at trial level, as it preserves the intersubject variability present in the control group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The amygdala produces an output signal in response to prospective loss, which is conveyed to other value-sensitive brain structures such as the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex.

    “In this view, the amygdala produces an output signal in response to prospective loss, which is conveyed to other value-sensitive brain structures such as the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Amygdala and striatum have well-documented anatomic connectivity and show tight functional coupling in stimulus-reward association and stimulus-cue devaluation.

    “Amygdala and striatum have a well-documented anatomic connectivity (29) and show a tight functional coupling in stimulus–reward association and stimulus–cue devaluation (30).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [29] Amaral DG, Price JL, Pitkanen A, Carmichael ST. in The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. In: Aggleton JP, editor. New York: Wiley−Liss; 1992. pp. 1–66. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] Baxter MG, Murray EA. The amygdala and reward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:563–573. doi: 10.1038/nrn875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    In mixed gambles, reduced aversive signal from potential loss together with normal appetitive signals from potential gain may cause the appetitive response to outweigh the aversive component in lesion patients, particularly when the EV of the gamble is close to zero.

    “In the case of evaluation of mixed gambles, this could result in a reduced aversive signal elicited by the prospect of potential loss together with normal appetitive signals triggered by the prospect of potential gain. As a consequence (in particular when the EV of the gamble is close to zero), the appetitive response to the gain component of the gamble may outweigh the aversive component in the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The amygdala is not the locus of memory or of choice, but it passes a signal to other brain regions for integration of such processes.

    “In those examples, the amygdala is not the locus of memory or of choice, but it passes a signal to other brain regions for integration of such processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The findings could shed light on the nature of individual differences in loss aversion observed in many behavioral studies.

    “Our findings could also shed some light on the nature of individual differences in loss aversion observed in many behavioral studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    The amygdala's role in mediating loss aversion may be analogous to its role in modulating caudate- or hippocampal-dependent memory and choice in reversal tasks.

    “In this regard, the amygdala’s role in mediating loss aversion may be analogous to its role in modulating caudate- or hippocampal-dependent memory (31), and choice in reversal tasks (20).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [31] Packard MG, Cahill L, McGaugh JL. Amygdala modulation of hippocampal-dependent and caudate nucleus-dependent memory processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:8477–8481. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.18.8477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Hampton AN, Adolphs R, Tyszka MJ, O’Doherty JP. Contributions of the amygdala to reward expectancy and choice signals in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron. 2007;55:545–555. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

25 of 25

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The laboratory monetary gamble task measures the same loss aversion that shapes everyday financial decisions.

    “a role that is expressed in monetary loss aversion shaping everyday financial decisions.”
1 of 1

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?

  • Amygdala activity tracks the subjective values of rewards and punishments and reflects individual preferences.

    “Recent studies have shown that amygdala activity tracks the subjective values of rewards and punishments 14 and reflects individual preferences 15 .”

    From Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(5) = 1.16reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .298

    “t(5) = 1.16, p > .1”

  • Consistentt(5) = 0.65reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .544

    “t(5) = 0.65, p > .1”

2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two expressions for gamble variance are unequal

    Minor

    The stated variance calculation has an extra factor of 0.5 on its second term, so it does not equal the expression after the equals sign. For G = 20 and L = −20, the left side gives 300 and the right side gives 400.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. TW Buchanan, D Tranel, R Adolphs The Human Amygdala and Social Function (Oxford Univ Press, London, 2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
De Martino, B., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-02-23
Volume
107
Issue
8
Pages
3788-3792
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0910230107
PMC
PMC2840433
OpenAlex
W2131236995
Cited by
444
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 23
FWCI
19.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080721)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01NS019632)
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
loss aversion, amygdala, monetary gambles, risk aversion, expected value, neuroeconomics, behavioral economics
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Female, Gambling, Humans, Middle Aged

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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