CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 400Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Overlapping and Distinct Neural Systems Code for Subjective Value during Intertemporal and Risky Decision Making

Open access
Peters, Jan, Büchel, Christian·2009·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.3489-09.2009PMC PMC6666169
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

During decision making, valuation of different types of rewards may involve partially distinct neural systems, but efficient choice behavior requires a common neural coding of stimulus value. We addressed this issue by measuring neural activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging while volunteers processed delayed and probabilistic decision options. Behaviorally, participants discounted both types of rewards in a hyperbolic manner, and discount rates, reflecting individual preferences, varied considerably between participants. Ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex showed a domain-general coding of subjective value regardless of whether rewards were delayed or probabilistic, strongly implicating these regions in the implementation of a common neural currency of value. In contrast, fronto-polar and lateral parietal cortex, as well as a region in the posterior cingulate cortex only correlated with the value of delayed rewards, whereas superior parietal cortex and middle occipital areas only represented the value of probabilistic rewards. These results suggest a mechanism for the neural coding of subjective value in the human brain that is based on the combination of domain-general and domain-specific valuation networks.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using fMRI, the authors show that ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex code subjective value for both delayed and probabilistic rewards, while separate fronto-parietal/posterior cingulate and parietal/occipital systems code value specific to delay and probability, respectively. A second behavioral experiment found no systematic preference between delayed and probabilistic rewards of equal subjective value.

Key findings

  • Behavior was well described by hyperbolic discounting: median R² was 0.81 for delay discounting (DD) and 0.93 for probability discounting (PD); model accuracy was 84.82 ± 8.27% for DD and 86.75 ± 6.59% for PD. Discount rates were stable over ~4 months (n = 13; DD r = 0.69, p = 0.009; PD r = 0.76, p = 0.0026) and between pretest and fMRI (n = 22; DD r = 0.78, p = 0.000019; PD r = 0.74, p = 0.00008).
  • A domain-general value signal appeared in left ventral striatum (−8, 4, −8; z = 5.13; DD parameter estimate 3.12 ± 0.39, PD 2.95 ± 0.40) and right central OFC (26, 18, −16; z = 3.62; DD 1.68 ± 0.35, PD 1.51 ± 0.35); ventromedial PFC also emerged at a reduced uncorrected threshold (p < 0.005).
  • Delay-specific value coding was found in posterior cingulate cortex (−2, −46, 32; z = 4.33), medial PFC/frontal pole (−8, 52, 16; z = 4.05), and bilateral lateral parietal cortex (left −58, −46, 36; z = 5.72; right 54, −42, 26; z = 4.98), with positive DD but near-zero/negative PD parameter estimates.
  • Probability-specific value coding was most pronounced in right superior/inferior parietal lobule (42, −38, 44; z = 5.26) and left middle occipital gyrus (−48, −62, −10; z = 5.10); parameter estimates were positive for PD and below/near zero for DD (IPS: DD −0.85 ± 0.38, PD 2.92 ± 0.38; MOG: DD −0.11 ± 0.49, PD 3.49 ± 0.49). In experiment 2 (n = 18), participants were indifferent between delayed and probabilistic rewards at a value difference of −0.003, not significantly different from 0 (t(17) = −0.074, p = 0.942).

Methods

  • Experiment 1 included 22 subjects (mean age 26.3 years; eight male) who completed behavioral pretests and then fMRI. During scanning they chose between a fixed immediate €20 reward and larger delayed or probabilistic offers; delay and probability trials were randomly intermixed, with 48 delay and 48 probability trials per session across two sessions (96 trials per condition per subject). One choice was randomly selected for real payment via Amazon gift certificate, averaging €30.1 (range €20–70).
  • Experiment 2 included 18 participants (13 also in experiment 1) who made repeated choices between €20 available with a given delay and €20 available with a given probability.
  • fMRI data were acquired on a 3 T Siemens TIM-TRIO and analyzed in SPM5 using a general linear model with a parametric regressor for subjective value (objective amount × subject-specific discount fraction), orthogonalized against inverse delay-to-reward/probability and reward amount. Second-level random-effects analyses used a flexible factorial design; thresholds were p < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons using spherical search volumes, and a conjunction analysis identified regions significant in both DD and PD.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the posterior cingulate delay-specific finding warrants caution because other posterior cingulate parts showed probability-specific value coding and another study (Pine et al., 2009) did not observe posterior cingulate value signals during DD.
  • The paper states that ventral striatum findings may reflect prediction error rather than value, and that value and prediction error are difficult to differentiate experimentally.
  • The paper states that it had no specific a priori hypotheses regarding probability-specific networks, so those results focus on the most pronounced clusters; evident from the text, the fMRI findings are correlational and the paper itself notes that a common value signal is not a necessary prerequisite for adaptive decision making.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.3489-09.2009

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 26 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Discount rates showed good long-term stability between testing sessions conducted on average 119 days apart (DD r=0.69, p=0.009; PD r=0.76, p=0.0026).

    “Discount rates were tested on average 119 d apart (range of 79 -210 d) and showed good stability between testing sessions (test-retest DD, r ϭ 0.69, p ϭ 0.009; PD, r ϭ 0.76, p ϭ 0.0026)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Superior parietal cortex and middle occipital areas only represented the value of probabilistic rewards.

    “superior parietal cortex and middle occipital areas only represented the value of probabilistic rewards.”
    • Also stated in: § Subjective valuation during probability discounting · plain
      “A subset of these regions showed significantly better correlations with subjective value during PD than during DD (Fig. 5, right) (supplemental Table 5, available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material), the most pronounced clusters being located in the right inferior/superior intraparietal lobule and left middle occipital gyrus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Delayed and probabilistic rewards are equally valuable if their discounted value is the same.
  • Findingown data

    Fronto-polar and lateral parietal cortex, as well as a region in the posterior cingulate cortex, only correlated with the value of delayed rewards.

    “fronto-polar and lateral parietal cortex, as well as a region in the posterior cingulate cortex only correlated with the value of delayed rewards”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kable and Glimcher, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Delayed and probabilistic rewards are equally valuable if their discounted value is the same.
  • Findingown data

    Ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex showed a domain-general coding of subjective value regardless of whether rewards were delayed or probabilistic.

    “Ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex showed a domain-general coding of subjective value regardless of whether rewards were delayed or probabilistic”
    • Also stated in: § A core network for subjective reward valuation · plain
      “Left ventral striatum (Ϫ8, 4, Ϫ8; z value ϭ 5.13; mean Ϯ SEM parameter estimate: DD, 3.12 Ϯ 0.39; PD, 2.95 Ϯ 0.40) and right central OFC (26, 18, Ϫ16; z value ϭ 3.62; mean Ϯ SEM parameter estimate: DD, 1.68 Ϯ 0.35; PD, 1.51 Ϯ 0.35) coded for the subjective value of both delayed and probabilistic rewards”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Delayed and probabilistic rewards are equally valuable if their discounted value is the same.
  • Findingown data

    Participants discounted both delayed and probabilistic rewards in a hyperbolic manner.

    “Behaviorally, participants discounted both types of rewards in a hyperbolic manner”
    • Also stated in: § Behavioral data during fMRI · boosted
      “Choice preferences during scanning were again well characterized by hyperbolic functions (median R 2 : DD, 0.81; PD, 0.93).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 13
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants discounted monetary value over both time and probability in a hyperbolic manner.

    “Behaviorally, our data show that participants discounted monetary value over both time and probability in a hyperbolic manner.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Reaction times were generally faster in higher value trials relative to lower and similar valued trials.

    “reflecting the fact that RTs were generally faster in higher value trials relative to lower and similar valued trials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    There was a negative but nonsignificant correlation between DD and PD discount rates (r=-0.24, p=0.28).

    “there was a negative but nonsignificant correlation between the DD and PD discount rates (r ϭ Ϫ0.24, p ϭ 0.28).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The parameter estimate of the subjective value regressor was positive for DD, whereas it was approximately 0 for PD in both FP/mPFC and PCC.

    “The parameter estimate of the subjective value regressor was positive for DD, whereas it was ϳ0 for PD in both FP/mPFC (mean Ϯ SEM parameter estimate: DD, 1.59 Ϯ 0.32; PD, Ϫ0.48 Ϯ 0.32) and PCC (mean Ϯ SEM parameter estimate: DD, 1.86 Ϯ 0.42; PD, Ϫ0.57Ϯ 0.42).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    There was a main effect of value on reaction times, with faster RTs in higher value trials relative to lower and similar valued trials.

    “There was a main effect of value (F (1.912,40.161)ϭ 20.731,pϽ0.001)butnointeractionwithcondition(conditionϫvalueinteraction, F (1.947,40.161)ϭ 1.794, p ϭ 0.18), reflecting the fact that RTs were generally faster in higher value trials relative to lower and similar valued trials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a main effect of value on reaction times (F(1.912,40.161)=20.731, p<0.001) but no interaction with condition.

    “There was a main effect of value (F (1.912,40.161)ϭ 20.731,pϽ0.001)butnointeractionwithcondition(conditionϫvalueinteraction, F (1.947,40.161)ϭ 1.794, p ϭ 0.18)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Reaction times were comparable for the delay discounting and probability discounting conditions.

    “Reaction times were comparable for the two conditions (mean Ϯ SD RT: DD, 791 Ϯ 86 ms; PD, 809 Ϯ 95 ms; main effect condition, F (1,21) ϭ 0.022, p ϭ 0.833).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A more lateral parietal region coded for value during delay discounting, whereas a more superior parietal region coded for value during probability discounting, with minimal overlap.

    “a more lateral parietal region coded for value during DD, whereas a more superior parietal region coded for value during PD, with minimal overlap.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Discount rates showed stability between behavioral and fMRI sessions for delay discounting (p=0.00001) and probability discounting (p=0.00008).

    “and between behavioral and fMRI sessions (n ϭ 22 subjects; b, delay discounting, p ϭ 0.00001; d, probability discounting, p ϭ 0.00008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the present setting, domain-specific mechanisms included frontal pole, posterior cingulate subregion, and lateral parietal cortex for delayed rewards, and middle occipital gyrus and superior parietal cortex for probabilistic rewards.

    “In the present setting, these mechanisms included frontal pole, a subregion of the posterior cingulate and lateral parietal cortex for the valuation of delayed rewards, and, among others, middle occipital gyrus and superior parietal cortex that were specific for the valuation of probabilistic rewards”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Reaction times were comparable for DD and PD conditions (DD 791 ± 86 ms; PD 809 ± 95 ms; main effect condition F(1,21)=0.022, p=0.833).

    “Reaction times were comparable for the two conditions (mean Ϯ SD RT: DD, 791 Ϯ 86 ms; PD, 809 Ϯ 95 ms; main effect condition, F (1,21) ϭ 0.022, p ϭ 0.833).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Discount rates (k parameters) showed long-term stability across 4 months for delay discounting (p=0.009) and probability discounting (p=0.0026).

    “Discount rates (k parameters) showed long-term stability across 4 months (n ϭ 13 subjects; a, delay discounting, p ϭ 0.009; c, probability discounting, p ϭ 0.0026)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    There was no interaction between condition and value on reaction times.

    “butnointeractionwithcondition(conditionϫvalueinteraction, F (1.947,40.161)ϭ 1.794, p ϭ 0.18)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The subjective value of rewards declines in a hyperbolic manner with increasing delay-to-reward and decreasing reward probability.

    “delay discounting (DD) and probability discounting (PD), referring to the phenomena that the subjective value of rewards declines in a hyperbolic manner with increasing delay-to-reward and decreasing reward probability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Green and Myerson, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kalenscher and Pennartz, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Delayed and probabilistic rewards may be conceptually related because delay discounting may arise at least partly from the future being inherently more uncertain than the present.

    “Also, delayed and probabilistic rewards may be conceptu-ally related (Hayden and Platt, 2007), because delay discounting may arise at least partly from the future being inherently more uncertain than the present (Rachlin et al., 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hayden and Platt, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rachlin et al., 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Activity in ventromedial prefrontal cortex and striatum correlated with subjective value, whereas posterior cingulate activity was only observed in the study by Kable and Glimcher (2007).

    “revealed that activity in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and striatum correlated with subjective value, whereas posterior cingulate activity was only observed in the study by Kable and Glimcher (2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kable and Glimcher, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pine et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The frontal pole shows a positive correlation with the amount of details generated during future thinking.

    “and shows a positive correlation with the amount of details generated during future thinking (Addis and Schacter, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Addis and Schacter, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Ventral striatum and OFC coded for subjective value in a domain-general manner, integrating results from domain-specific valuation systems into a common neural currency of value.

    “Ventral striatum and OFC coded for subjective value in a domaingeneral manner, integrating results from domain-specific valuation systems into a common neural currency of value”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Subjects provided informed written consent.

    “Subjects were reimbursed for participation and provided informed written consent”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study procedure was approved by the local ethics committee.

    “the study procedure was approved by the local ethics committee.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Posterior cingulate and ventral striatum are more involved in intertemporal choices, whereas regions in posterior parietal cortex and lateral PFC are more involved in risky choices.

    “another study (Weber and Huettel, 2008) suggested that posterior cingulate and ventral striatum are more involved in intertemporal choices, whereas regions in the posterior parietal cortex and lateral PFC are more involved in risky choices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Weber and Huettel, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The frontal pole is more involved in elaboration of future scenarios than elaboration of past scenarios.

    “the frontal pole is more involved in elaboration of future scenarios than elaboration of past scenarios (Addis et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Addis et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Activity in posterior cingulate, frontal pole, and lateral parietal cortex increases with increasing anticipated delay until reward delivery.

    “a recent study (Luhmann et al., 2008) that showed activity increases in posterior cingulate, frontal pole, and lateral parietal cortex with increasing anticipated delay until reward delivery.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luhmann et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Correction for multiple comparisons was performed using spherical search volumes centered at peak coordinates from previous studies.

    “Correction for multiple comparisons was performed using spherical search volumes centered at peak coordinates from previous studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The parietal cortex plays a role in representing stimulus value, with possible differences as a function of decision option.

    “Our data therefore confirm a role of the parietal cortex in representing stimulus value but suggest possible differences as a function of decision option.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The analysis used a threshold of p<0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons based on the familywise error rate.

    “For all analyses, the threshold was set to p Ͻ 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons (based on the familywise error rate).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    To account for residual variance caused by subject movement, the realignment parameters were included as additional regressors at the first level.

    “To account for residual variance caused by subject movement, the realignment parameters were included as additional regressors at the first level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
27 of 27

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Delayed and probabilistic rewards are equally valuable if their discounted value is the same.

    “Experiment 1 was based on the assumption that delayed and probabilistic rewards are equally valuable if their discounted value is the same.”
    “To directly test this assumption, we conducted an additional behavioral experiment.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Only during probability discounting is it possible to compute expected values.

    “Only during PD it is possible to compute expected values”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Value and prediction errors are often highly correlated.

    “Given that value and prediction errors are often highly correlated”
3 of 3

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?

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.

  • Interaction ANOVA degrees of freedom do not match

    Minor

    With 22 subjects, the denominator degrees of freedom for this within-subject interaction should be 21 times the corrected numerator degrees of freedom: 1.947 × 21 = 40.887, not 40.161. The reported denominator instead matches the separate main effect of value.

    Reported 40.161 · recomputed 40.887

  • Delay-discounting correlation has two different p-values

    Minor

    The Results report p = 0.000019 for the behavioral-to-fMRI delay-discounting correlation, while the Figure 2 caption reports p = 0.00001 for the same comparison.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peters, J., & Büchel, C.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2009-12-16
Volume
29
Issue
50
Pages
15727-15734
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.3489-09.2009
PMC
PMC6666169
OpenAlex
W1975745304
Semantic Scholar
19672dd273a1a114357e1a0aff843f2ca9ee2e3d
Cited by
400
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 29
FWCI
9.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
subjective value, intertemporal choice, risky decision making, delay discounting, hyperbolic discounting, probabilistic reward, ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, parietal cortex, reward valuation
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Psychomotor Performance, Reward, Risk-Taking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

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

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review