The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 5 Own result · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both amygdala-lesioned participants showed a strikingly higher willingness to accept gambles than their matched control groups.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaincorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two participants have rare focal bilateral lesions of the amygdala (Fig. 1).”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first analysis exploited the fact that in our experimental design the outcome variance (VAR) of each mixed gain–loss gamble is orthogonal to the gamble’s EV (i.e., they are uncorrelated) (Fig. 5).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings demonstrate that the amygdala plays a necessary role in generating loss aversion”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
“The findings suggest that the amygdala plays a key role in generating loss aversion by inhibiting actions with potentially deleterious outcomes.”
boosteddirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our findings demonstrate that the amygdala plays a necessary role in generating loss aversion and suggest that loss aversion may reflect a simple Pavlovian approach–avoidance response mediated by the amygdala (36, 37).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Kahneman D, Frederick S. Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11:45–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Dayan P, Seymour B. Values and actions in aversion. In: Glimcher P, Camerer C, Poldrack R, Fehr E, editors. Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. New York, NY: Academic Press; 2008. pp. 175–191. [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That finding, and our present results from lesion patients, suggest that individual variance in amygdala function might contribute, together with other socioeconomic factors, to individual differences in loss aversion, even in healthy individuals.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we suggest that the amygdala may implement a very general biological mechanism for inhibiting instrumental behavior when outcomes are potentially aversive—a role that is expressed in monetary loss aversion shaping everyday financial decisions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The laboratory monetary gamble task measures the same loss aversion that shapes everyday financial decisions.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critically, both participants retained a monotonic sensitivity to reward magnitude (i.e., they preferred larger gains and smaller losses).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39:341–350. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [4] Haigh M, List J. Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. J Finance. 2005;60:523–534. [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res. 2000;37:60–71. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Ariely D, Huber J, Wertenbroch K. When do losses loom larger than gains? J Mark Res. 2005;42:134–138. [Google Scholar] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–292. [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“a tendency for amygdala-lesioned monkeys to approach stimuli that healthy monkeys avoid (15)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a recent fMRI study (18 ) did not find amygdala activation associated with loss aversion”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“lesion studies are one of the few methods in human neuroscience to investigate causal relationships between brain function and behavior.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this is a standard procedure used in behavioral economics, which ensures that participants evaluate each gamble independently.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, lesions to the amygdala would result in a reduced input to downstream regions that compute value through integrating across multiple inputs.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings could also shed some light on the nature of individual differences in loss aversion observed in many behavioral studies.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“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”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Methods
“0.5[G − (0.5G + 0.5L)]2 + 0.5 × 0.5[L − (0.5G + 0.5L)]2”
§ Methods
“= (0.5G − 0.5L)2”
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35084005 · Cited by 6,551
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (2013) · World Scientific handbook in financial economic series · doi:10.1142/9789814417358_0016 · Cited by 5,379
Serotonin transporter genetic variation and the response of the human amygdala.
Hariri, A. R., Mattay, V. S., Tessitore, A., Kolachana, B., Fera, F., Goldman, D., Egan, M. F., & Weinberger, D. R. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1071829 · Cited by 2,340
Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718 · Cited by 2,239
The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk
Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134239 · Cited by 1,733
Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain
Martino, B. D., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1128356 · Cited by 1,687
The amygdala: Neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction.
Aggleton, J. P. (1992) · Wiley-Liss eBooks · Cited by 1,536
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- TW Buchanan, D Tranel, R Adolphs The Human Amygdala and Social Function (Oxford Univ Press, London, 2009).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization
Barrett, L. F. (2016) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsw154 · Cited by 1,426
“…Adolphs and Tranel, 1999, 2003; Atkinson et al., 2007; de Gelder et al., 2014; Hampton et al., 2007; Tsuchiya et al., 2009; Hurlemann et al., 2007; De Martino et al., 2010; Boes et al., 2011; Feinstein et al., 2011, 2013, 2016; Becker et al., 2012; Terburg et al., 2012; Feinstein, 2013; Mihov et…”
Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams
(2020) · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2314-9 · Cited by 1,097
Self-citationThe theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization
Barrett, L. F. (2017) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsx060 · Cited by 1,009
“This typological characterization fundamentally underestimates within-category variation (in its phenotypic features and in it’s gene pool) and over-estimates between category variation (and borderline cases are often encountered; Mayr, 2004; Gelman and Rhodes, 2012).”
What does the amygdala contribute to social cognition
Adolphs, R. (2010) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05445.x · Cited by 836
Self-citationGuiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2013) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.02.007 · Cited by 796
Understanding Emotions: Origins and Roles of the Amygdala
Šimić, G., Tkalčić, M., Vukić, V., Mulc, D., Španić, E., Šagud, M., Olucha-Bordonau, F. E., Vukšić, M., & Hof, P. R. (2021) · Biomolecules · doi:10.3390/biom11060823 · Cited by 631
“[277], due to calcification of the amygdala, the dominant finding was a loss of fear, it should be emphasized once again that the amygdala (especially the left amygdala) is not only involved in generating and processing the emotion of fear, but also with other types of emotional signals, including the generation of lo…”
BackgroundThe Human Amygdala and the Induction and Experience of Fear
Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (2011) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.042 · Cited by 497
Self-citationHartley, C. A., & Phelps, E. A. (2012) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.027 · Cited by 544
“A study demonstrating decreased loss aversion in patients with amygdala lesions (98) as well as an fMRI study showing a correlation between amygdala activity at choice and degree of loss aversion (99) suggest a role for the amygdala in generating this increased sensitivity to loss.”
BackgroundHow the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making
Basten, U., Biele, G., Heekeren, H. R., & Fiebach, C. J. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0908104107 · Cited by 466
“At the brain level, we hypothesized that the decision process involves separate representations of expected reward and loss, in the ventral striatum (1) and amygdala (14, 15), respectively, from which a comparison signal is computed.”
BackgroundMethodResultEmotion and Decision Making: Multiple Modulatory Neural Circuits
Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol‐Hessner, P. (2014) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014119 · Cited by 482
The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning
Galea, J. M., Mallia, E., Rothwell, J. C., & Diedrichsen, J. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3956 · Cited by 382
Mind the gap: bridging economic and naturalistic risk-taking with cognitive neuroscience
Schönberg, T., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.002 · Cited by 342
Emotion regulation reduces loss aversion and decreases amygdala responses to losses
Sokol‐Hessner, P., Camerer, C. F., & Phelps, E. A. (2012) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nss002 · Cited by 327
“This connection between emotion and choices is further supported by studies of patients with damage to those same regions (Shiv et al., 2005; De Martino et al., 2010), providing compelling evidence that the mechanisms underlying emotions and choice overlap.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationCritical Roles for Anterior Insula and Dorsal Striatum in Punishment-Based Avoidance Learning
Palminteri, S., Justo, D., Jauffret, C., Pavlicek, B., Dauta, A., Delmaire, C., Czernecki, V., Karachi, C., Capelle, L., Dürr, A., et al. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.017 · Cited by 237
Dispositional negativity: An integrative psychological and neurobiological perspective.
Shackman, A. J., Tromp, D., Stockbridge, M. D., Kaplan, C. M., Tillman, R. M., & Fox, A. S. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000073 · Cited by 249
Genetic origins of social networks in rhesus macaques
Brent, L. J. N., Heilbronner, S. R., Horvath, J. E., Gonzalez-Martinez, J., Ruiz-Lambides, A., Robinson, A. G., Skene, J. H. P., & Platt, M. L. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep01042 · Cited by 220
Amygdala regulates risk of predation in rats foraging in a dynamic fear environment
Choi, J.-S., & Kim, J. J. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1010079108 · Cited by 238
“In accordance, a recent study found that two human subjects with focal bilateral lesions of the amygdala (caused by Urbach–Wiethe disease) displayed a significant reduction in loss aversion in a gambling task (39).”
BackgroundThe Functional and Structural Neural Basis of Individual Differences in Loss Aversion
Canessa, N., Crespi, C., Motterlini, M., Baud‐Bovy, G., Chierchia, G., Pantaleo, G., Tettamanti, M., & Cappa, S. F. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0497-13.2013 · Cited by 217
“The reduced range of potential losses, along with the overall positive expected value of the gambles, may have thus elicited only a weak and undetectable amygdala activity (De Martino et al. 2010).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEnhanced Risk Aversion, But Not Loss Aversion, in Unmedicated Pathological Anxiety
Charpentier, C. J., Aylward, J., Roiser, J. P., & Robinson, O. J. (2016) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.12.010 · Cited by 210
The role of the amygdala in atypical gaze on emotional faces in autism spectrum disorders
Kliemann, D., Dziobek, I., Hatri, A., Baudewig, J., & Heekeren, H. R. (2012) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5294-11.2012 · Cited by 183
“Recent findings suggest a crucial role in detecting and processing environmental features (Adolphs et al., 1995; Whalen, 2007; De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundThe amygdala and decision-making
Gupta, R., Koscik, T. R., Bechara, A., & Tranel, D. (2010) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.029 · Cited by 205
Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374176-9.00011-7 · Cited by 176
The Impact of Culture on Loss Aversion
Wang, M., Rieger, M. O., & Hens, T. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1941 · Cited by 181
Decision Making: From Neuroscience to Psychiatry
Lee, D. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.04.008 · Cited by 178
“For example, activity in the amygdala changes according to whether a particular outcome is framed as a gain or a loss (De Martino et al., 2006), and loss aversion is abolished in patients with focal lesions in the amygdala (De Martino et al., 2010).”
Neural mechanisms of social decision-making in the primate amygdala
Chang, S. W. C., Fagan, N. A., Toda, K., Utevsky, A. V., Pearson, J. M., & Platt, M. L. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1514761112 · Cited by 157
“More recent studies demonstrate activity in BLA tracks the value of rewards and punishments (18), predicts risky financial decisions (19), reflects internal motivational goals (20), and correlates with vigilance and attention (21).”
BackgroundGuiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2013) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w19284 · Cited by 161
Distorted expectancy coding in problem gambling: is the addictive in the anticipation?
van Holst, R. J., Veltman, D. J., Büchel, C., van den Brink, W., & Goudriaan, A. E. (2012) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.030 · Cited by 155
Seeing is believing? Executives' facial trustworthiness, auditor tenure, and audit fees
Hsieh, T., Kim, J., Wang, R. R., & Wang, Z. (2019) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2019.101260 · Cited by 160
The Psychological and Neural Basis of Loss Aversion
Sokol‐Hessner, P., & Rutledge, R. B. (2018) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721418806510 · Cited by 167
Dynamic integration of information about salience and value for saccadic eye movements
Schütz, A. C., Trommershäuser, J., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1115638109 · Cited by 152
Neural systems underlying aversive conditioning in humans with primary and secondary reinforcers
Delgado, M. R., Jou, R. L., & Phelps, E. A. (2011) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2011.00071 · Cited by 141
“The experiments were approved by the University Committee on Activities Involving Human Subjects.”
BackgroundMethodA comparative fMRI meta-analysis of altruistic and strategic decisions to give
Cutler, J., & Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.009 · Cited by 146
Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion
Brown, A. L., Imai, T., Vieider, F. M., & Camerer, C. F. (2024) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20221698 · Cited by 180
Self-citationMarchand, W. R. (2010) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0280-y · Cited by 137
Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation.
Loewenstein, G. F., O’Donoghue, T., & Bhatia, S. (2015) · Decision · doi:10.1037/dec0000029 · Cited by 135
The Golden Age of Social Science
Buyalskaya, A., Gallo, M., & Camerer, C. F. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2002923118 · Cited by 137
Self-citationBested, A. C., Logan, A. C., & Selhub, E. M. (2013) · Gut Pathogens · doi:10.1186/1757-4749-5-3 · Cited by 121
Miloyan, B. H., & Suddendorf, T. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.008 · Cited by 120
Damage to insula abolishes cognitive distortions during simulated gambling
Clark, L., Studer, B., Bruss, J., Tranel, D., & Bechara, A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1322295111 · Cited by 117
“Data from neuropsychological testing and functional neuroimaging in pathological gamblers provide much evidence for disruption of the vmPFC and orbitofrontal cortex (16, 27, 28, 56), as well as preliminary evidence for amygdala involvement in loss aversion (57) and gain expectancies (17).”
BackgroundMrkva, K., Johnson, E. J., Gächter, S., & Herrmann, A. P. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1156 · Cited by 134
Can the neuroeconomics revolution revolutionize psychiatry?
Hasler, G. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.04.011 · Cited by 122
Prospect Theory and Political Decision Making
Vis, B. (2011) · Political Studies Review · doi:10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00238.x · Cited by 126
Neuroeconomic Approaches to Mental Disorders
Kishida, K. T., King‐Casas, B., & Montague, P. R. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.07.021 · Cited by 124
Pathological choice: the neuroscience of gambling and gambling addiction
Clark, L., Averbeck, B., Payer, D., Sescousse, G., Winstanley, C. A., & Xue, G. (2013) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3231-13.2013 · Cited by 116
“Loss aversion may be underpinned by value computations in the ventral striatum and amygdala (Tom et al., 2007; De Martino et al., 2010) and has been shown to be modulated by thalamic norepinephrine (Takahashi et al., 2013).”
BackgroundPositive emotional context eliminates the framing effect in decision-making.
Cassotti, M., Habib, M., Poirel, N., Aïte, A., Houdé, O., & Moutier, S. (2012) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0026788 · Cited by 134
Neural Basis for Economic Saving Strategies in Human Amygdala-Prefrontal Reward Circuits
Zangemeister, L., Fabian Grabenhorst, B., & Schultz, W. (2016) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.09.016 · Cited by 110
“Accordingly, amygdala planning signals differed from known amygdala processing of externally cued, immediate rewards [17–20, 40] and decision parameters in isolated, single-trial choices [23, 24, 27].”
BackgroundLosses, gains, and brains: Neuroeconomics can help to answer open questions about loss aversion
Rick, S. I. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.04.004 · Cited by 113
“In De Martino et al. (2010), possible gains ranged from +$20 to +$50 and possible losses ranged from −$20 to −$50.”
InfluentialPowell, T. C. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.969 · Cited by 110
Risk-Taking Behavior: Dopamine D2/D3 Receptors, Feedback, and Frontolimbic Activity
Kohno, M., Ghahremani, D. G., Morales, A. M., Robertson, C. L., Ishibashi, K., Morgan, A., Mandelkern, M. A., & London, E. D. (2013) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht218 · Cited by 97
“This view is in line with observations that loss-aversion behavior is positively correlated with amygdala activation in a risky monetary-choice task (Sokol-Hessner et al. 2012), and that patients with amygdala lesions are less loss-averse than healthy controls (De Martino et al. 2010).”
ResultTime Varying Risk AversionPreprint
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2303800 · Cited by 99
“De Martino et al. (2010) find that amygdala-damaged patients take risky gambles much more often than subjects of the same age and education who have no amygdala damage.”
BackgroundHeightened aversion to risk and loss in depressed patients with a suicide attempt history
Baek, K., Kwon, J., Chae, J.-H., Chung, Y. A., Kralik, J. D., Min, J.-A., Huh, H., Choi, K. M., Jang, K.-I., Lee, N.-B., et al. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-10541-5 · Cited by 98
Negative Valence Widens Generalization of Learning
Schechtman, E., Laufer, O., & Paz, R. (2010) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2377-10.2010 · Cited by 103
“Loss-aversion, for example, was indeed shown to depend on the amygdala and connected structures (Tom et al., 2007; De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundNeural Basis of Emotional Decision Making in Trait Anxiety
Xu, P., Gu, R., Broster, L. S., Wu, R., Dam, N. T. V., Jiang, Y., Fan, J., & Luo, Y. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1253-13.2013 · Cited by 96
“This idea explains why excessive amygdala activity could result in not only increased urges to avoid negative outcomes (De Martino et al., 2010) but also increased urges to obtain rewards (Aupperle and Paulus, 2010).”
BackgroundThe Teenage Brain: Cognitive Control and Motivation
Luna, B., Paulsen, D. J., Padmanabhan, A., & Geier, C. (2013) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413478416 · Cited by 92
“Key components of this circuitry include the dorsal and ventral striatum (Delgado et al., 2000), ventral medial prefrontal cortex (Knutson et al., 2005), amygdala (De Martino et al., 2010), and orbitofrontal cortex (O’Doherty et al., 2001), among others ( see Schultz, 2000, for review).”
On the role of impulsivity and decision-making in suicidal behavior
Gvion, Y., Levi‐Belz, Y., Hadlaczky, G., & Apter, A. (2015) · World Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.5498/wjp.v5.i3.255 · Cited by 101
Aversive stimuli and loss in the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system
Brooks, A. M., & Berns, G. S. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.001 · Cited by 85
Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala
Liu, Y., Li, S., Lin, W., Li, W., Yan, X., Wang, X., Pan, X., Rutledge, R. B., & Ma, Y. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0351-1 · Cited by 89
Amygdala Functional and Structural Connectivity Predicts Individual Risk Tolerance
Jung, W. H., Lee, S., Lerman, C. E., & Kable, J. W. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.019 · Cited by 85
“…for given risky options (Ernst et al., 2004; Krain et al., 2008; Levy et al., 2010); and activity in the anterior insula (aINS), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and amygdala reflect the degree of risk or uncertainty (Kuhnen and Knutson, 2005; Preuschoff et al., 2008; De Martino et al., 2010).”
Pessiglione, M., & Delgado, M. R. (2015) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.08.006 · Cited by 89
“A recent study investing choices between lotteries reported that patients with amygdala calcification did not exhibit the change in risk attitude between gain and loss domains (the so-called framing effect) and were therefore considered as more rational than healthy subjects [92].”
Stress effects on framed decisions: there are differences for gains and losses
Pabst, S., Brand, M., & Wolf, O. T. (2013) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00142 · Cited by 85
“Also, patients with amygdala lesions showed decreased framing effects in the loss domain (de Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSocial Preferences and the Brain
Fehr, E. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374176-9.00015-4 · Cited by 84
Jai, T.-M. C., Fang, D., Bao, F. S., James, R. N., Chen, T., & Cai, W. (2020) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2020.04.005 · Cited by 88
Bad World: The Negativity Bias in International Politics
JOHNSON, D. D. P., & Tierney, D. (2019) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00336 · Cited by 84
Genauck, A., Quester, S., Wüstenberg, T., Mörsen, C. P., Heinz, A., & Romanczuk‐Seiferth, N. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16433-y · Cited by 84
“…+ 𝛽𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝑒𝑑), the original model by (Tom et al, 2007) used in the current study (la, 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 ∗ 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 + 𝛽𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠), the ratio model (Gelskov et al, 2016) (lar, 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 ∗ 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜) and the De Martino/Charpentier model (Charpentier…”
MethodFollow the heart or the head? The interactive influence model of emotion and cognition
Luo, J., & Yu, R. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00573 · Cited by 85
Affect and Decision Making: Insights and Predictions from Computational Models
Roberts, I. D., & Hutcherson, C. A. C. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.005 · Cited by 82
The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat
Chatterjee, P., Irmak, C., & Rose, R. L. (2013) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/671344 · Cited by 76
Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Chen, X., Shang, X., & Liu, Y. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01601 · Cited by 74
“Because participants did not know which trial would be selected, they should have treated every trial independently (De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundStrategic and non‐strategic problem gamblers differ on decision‐making under risk and ambiguity
Lorains, F. K., Dowling, N. A., Enticott, P. G., Bradshaw, J. L., Trueblood, J. S., & Stout, J. C. (2014) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.12494 · Cited by 69
“[48] task and administered using E-Prime (version 2.”
MethodEmotion-induced loss aversion and striatal-amygdala coupling in low-anxious individuals
Charpentier, C. J., Martino, B. D., Sim, A. L., Sharot, T., & Roiser, J. P. (2015) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsv139 · Cited by 73
“This was done to ensure that the same ranges of wins and losses were presented for each emotion condition, and to optimize sensitivity to detect emotiondriven changes in loss aversion with a majority of gambles close to the participant’s indifference point.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialOpen versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution
Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H. G., & Federico, C. M. (2017) · Cited by 74
Chapman, J., Snowberg, E., Wang, S., & Camerer, C. F. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.3386/w25072 · Cited by 62
Self-citationMusic-evoked incidental happiness modulates probability weighting during risky lottery choices
Schulreich, S., Heussen, Y. G., Gerhardt, H., Mohr, P. N. C., Binkofski, F., Koelsch, S., & Heekeren, H. R. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00981 · Cited by 71
“We limited our study to the gain domain for the following reasons: first, neuroimaging and lesion studies suggest that losses and gains are processed differently in the human brain (Tom et al., 2007; De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundKorn, C. W., Vunder, J., Miró, J., Fuentemilla, L., Hurlemann, R., & Bach, D. (2017) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.01.018 · Cited by 60
“Patients with selective amygdala lesions are extremely rare, and often studies need to rely on single cases (35,43,44).”
Humans incorporate trial-to-trial working memory uncertainty into rewarded decisions
Honig, M., Ma, W. J., & Fougnie, D. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1918143117 · Cited by 63
Decomposing loss aversion from gaze allocation and pupil dilation
Feng, S., Ramakrishnan, A., Seok, D., Zhao, W. J., Thelaus, S., Cen, P., & Platt, M. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1919670117 · Cited by 69
Opponent Brain Systems for Reward and Punishment Learning
Palminteri, S., & Pessiglione, M. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-805308-9.00023-3 · Cited by 71
Goals, Methods, and Progress in Neuroeconomics
Camerer, C. F. (2013) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-082012-123040 · Cited by 61
“For example, the behavior of patientswith brain lesions in the amygdala, for example, is suggestive of whether the amygdala is part of a neural circuit creating that behavior (e.g., loss aversion) (see De Martino et al. 2006, 2010).”
BackgroundSelf-citationHow do self-interest and other-need interact in the brain to determine altruistic behavior?
Hu, J., Li, Y., Yin, Y., Blue, P. R., Yu, H., & Zhou, X. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.040 · Cited by 61
“The task procedure and the trial-set matrix were exactly the same as the loss aversion task used in De Martino et al. (2010).”
MethodEmotion as a boost to metacognition: How worry enhances the quality of confidence
Massoni, S. (2014) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.006 · Cited by 66
“Indeed De Martino, Kumaran, Seymour, and Dolan (2006), De Martino, Camerer, and Adolphs (2010) found an activation of the amygdala in the case of loss frame.”
BackgroundBerger, S., Baria, A. T., Baliki, M. N., Mansour, A. R., Herrmann, K. M., Torbey, S., Huang, L., Parks, E. L., Schnizter, T. J., & Apkarian, A. V. (2014) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-739 · Cited by 58
“Although similar to prospect theory, this calculation makes the assumptions of (1) a linear rather than curvilinear function and (2) identical decision weights for choices involving a 50% chance of either winning or losing money; this approach is identical to those used in previous studies [14,46].”
Acute stress does not affect risky monetary decision-making
Sokol‐Hessner, P., Raio, C. M., Gottesman, S. P., Lackovic, S. F., & Phelps, E. A. (2016) · Neurobiology of Stress · doi:10.1016/j.ynstr.2016.10.003 · Cited by 60
“First, we checked the baseline parameter estimates for risk attitudes, loss aversion, and consistency to ensure they replicated previous work (Tom et al., 2007; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2009; De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al. 2013, Chumbley et al. 2014, Sokol-Hessner et al. 2015a, 2015b).”
The effects of reward and punishment on motor skill learning
Chen, X., Holland, P. J., & Galea, J. M. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.11.011 · Cited by 70
“, economic decision-making 79 task) [9-11], rather than the process of learning/estimating action values through trial-and80 error/reinforcement learning (e.”
BackgroundAmygdalar Atrophy in Early Alzheimer’s Disease
Klein, Y., Heckemann, R. A., Ramdeen, K. T., Moreaud, O., Keignart, S., Krainik, A., Hammers, A., Baciu, M., Hot, P., & Initiative, A. D. N. (2014) · Current Alzheimer Research · doi:10.2174/1567205011666140131123653 · Cited by 57
“Regarding memory function, the amygdala is able to modulate the encoding and consolidation of information when it pertains to emotional stimuli [76-79].”
BackgroundThe role of dopamine in risk taking: a specific look at Parkinson’s disease and gambling
Clark, C. A., & Dagher, A. (2014) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00196 · Cited by 69
Laufer, O., & Paz, R. (2012) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6281-11.2012 · Cited by 56
“…classical trials of loss conditioning (Seymour et al., 2007; Delgado et al., 2011), but was involved during instrumental conditioning, in accordance with studies of active choice bias (Bechara et al., 1999; Breiter et al., 2001; Yacubian et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2009; De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundResultOver a Decade of Neuroeconomics: What Have We Learned?
Konovalov, A., & Krajbich, I. M. (2016) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428116644502 · Cited by 55
Decision-Making in Suicidal Behavior: The Protective Role of Loss Aversion
Hadlaczky, G., Hökby, S., Mkrtchian, A., Wasserman, D., Balázs, J., Machín, N., Sarchiapone, M., Sisask, M., & Carli, V. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00116 · Cited by 58
Norepinephrine in the brain is associated with aversion to financial loss
Takahashi, H., Fujie, S., Camerer, C., Arakawa, R., Takano, H., Kodaka, F., Matsui, H., Ideno, T., Okubo, S., Takemura, K., et al. (2013) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/mp.2012.7 · Cited by 52
Self-citationDissociable Neural Processes Underlying Risky Decisions for Self Versus Other
Jung, D., Sul, S., & Kim, H. (2013) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00015 · Cited by 56
“This effect is a representative example of emotionally driven decision making in risky situations and was strongly associated with activity in the amygdala (De Martino et al., 2006); further, the effect was significantly diminished in patients with amygdalar damage (De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialShared Neural Correlates Underlying Addictive Disorders and Negative Urgency
Um, M., Whitt, Z. T., Revilla, R., Hunton, T., & Cyders, M. A. (2019) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci9020036 · Cited by 53
“which previous studies have associated with the functional process of the ventral striatum and amygdala [84,85].”
ResultGu, R., Zhang, D., Luo, Y., Wang, H., & Broster, L. S. (2017) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-017-0555-3 · Cited by 57
Pammi, V. S. C., Rajesh, P. P. G., Kesavadas, C., Mary, P. R., Seema, S., Radhakrishnan, A., & Sitaram, R. (2015) · The Neuroradiology Journal · doi:10.1177/1971400915576670 · Cited by 57
Amygdala function in emotion, cognition, and behavior
Domínguez‐Borràs, J., & Vuilleumier, P. O. (2022) · Handbook of clinical neurology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823493-8.00015-8 · Cited by 56
The perceptual and social components of metacognition.
Pescetelli, N., Rees, G. E., & Bahrami, B. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000180 · Cited by 58
Determinants of Propranolol’s Selective Effect on Loss Aversion
Sokol‐Hessner, P., Lackovic, S. F., Tobe, R. H., Camerer, C. F., LEVENTHAL, B. L., & Phelps, E. A. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615582026 · Cited by 47
Self-citationA meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contextsPreprint
Walasek, L., Mullett, T. L., & Stewart, N. (2018) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3189088 · Cited by 65
“…individual difference in perception of gains and losses. forecasting errors (Kermer et al., 2006), uncertainty (Loomes et al., 2009; Walasek et al., 2014), as well as brain activation in regions responsible for reward sensitivity (Tom et al., 2007) and emotion processing (De Martino et al., 2010).”
Cocker, P. J., & Winstanley, C. A. (2014) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.10.043 · Cited by 49
Loss aversion is associated with bilateral insula volume. A voxel based morphometry study
Markett, S. A., Heeren, G., Montag, C., Weber, B., & Reuter, M. (2016) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2016.03.029 · Cited by 52
Neuroeconomics of Emotion and Decision Making
Lempert, K. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00012-7 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- De Martino, B., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- 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
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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 › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
