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
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
