The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neural Systems Responding to Degrees of Uncertainty in Human Decision-Making
Abstract
Much is known about how people make decisions under varying levels of probability (risk). Less is known about the neural basis of decision-making when probabilities are uncertain because of missing information (ambiguity). In decision theory, ambiguity about probabilities should not affect choices. Using functional brain imaging, we show that the level of ambiguity in choices correlates positively with activation in the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, and negatively with a striatal system. Moreover, striatal activity correlates positively with expected reward. Neurological subjects with orbitofrontal lesions were insensitive to the level of ambiguity and risk in behavioral choices. These data suggest a general neural circuit responding to degrees of uncertainty, contrary to decision theory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“These two dimensions, which characterize most daily life events, have been shown to involve the modulation of amygdala, prefrontal cortex and striatum (e.g., Hsu et al., 2005), the key nodes of the triadic model.”
From A systematic review of fMRI reward paradigms used in studies of adolescents vs. adults: The impact of task design and implications for understanding neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as Hsu et al., 2005
In the citing 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.”
From Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion (2010) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989) · Journal of Mathematical Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9 · Cited by 4,180
Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1100907 · Cited by 3,089
Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity
Schmeidler, D. (2004) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203358061-10 · Cited by 2,497
Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity
Schmeidler, D. (1989) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911053 · Cited by 2,276
Anticipation of Increasing Monetary Reward Selectively Recruits Nucleus Accumbens
Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-16-j0002.2001 · Cited by 2,244
Dissociable Roles of Ventral and Dorsal Striatum in Instrumental Conditioning
O'Doherty, J., Dayan, P., Schultz, J., Deichmann, R., Friston, K., & Dolan, R. J. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1094285 · Cited by 2,088
Neural systems for recognizing emotion
Adolphs, R. (2002) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(02)00301-x · Cited by 1,933
Self-citationBechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damásio, H. (2000) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 · Cited by 1,903
Self-citationRecent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- D. Amaral, J. Price, A. Pitkanen, S. Carmichael, in The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory, and Mental Dysfunction, J. P. Aggleton, Ed. (Wiley, New York, 1992), pp. 1â66.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
Zeng, X., Sun, Y. H., Gao, F., Hua, L., Xu, S., & Yuan, Z. (2024) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120726 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Camerer, C. F.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Camerer, Colin F.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2005-12-09
- Volume
- 310
- Issue
- 5754
- Pages
- 1680-1683
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2104346961
- Cited by
- 1,411
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 87
- FWCI
- 29.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH067681)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01 NS19632, P01NS019632)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- decision making under ambiguity, risk, uncertainty, amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex, striatum, expected reward, neural basis of choice, functional neuroimaging
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Amygdala, Brain, Brain Diseases, Brain Mapping, Corpus Striatum, Decision Making, Decision Theory, Female, Frontal Lobe, Games, Experimental, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Probability, Reward, Risk, Confidence Intervals, Likelihood Functions, Uncertainty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
