Cited by 162Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsGambling Behavior and Treatments

Decreasing ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity during sequential risk-taking: an fMRI investigation of the balloon analog risk task

Open access
Schonberg, Tom, Fox, Craig R., Mumford, Jeanette A., Congdon, Eliza, Trepel, Christopher, Poldrack, Russell A.·2012·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Functional imaging studies examining the neural correlates of risk have mainly relied on paradigms involving exposure to simple chance gambles and an economic definition of risk as variance in the probability distribution over possible outcomes. However, there is little evidence that choices made during gambling tasks predict naturalistic risk-taking behaviors such as drug use, extreme sports, or even equity investing. To better understand the neural basis of naturalistic risk-taking, we scanned participants using fMRI while they completed the Balloon Analog Risk Task, an experimental measure that includes an active decision/choice component and that has been found to correlate with a number of naturalistic risk-taking behaviors. In the task, as in many naturalistic settings, escalating risk-taking occurs under uncertainty and might be experienced either as the accumulation of greater potential rewards, or as exposure to increasing possible losses (and decreasing expected value). We found that areas previously linked to risk and risk-taking (bilateral anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) were activated as participants continued to inflate balloons. Interestingly, we found that ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) activity decreased as participants further expanded balloons. In light of previous findings implicating the vmPFC in value calculation, this result suggests that escalating risk-taking in the task might be perceived as exposure to increasing possible losses (and decreasing expected value) rather than the increasing potential total reward relative to the starting point of the trial. A better understanding of how neural activity changes with risk-taking behavior in the task offers insight into the potential neural mechanisms driving naturalistic risk-taking.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2012.00080

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The BART involves both affective and cognitive control regions.

    “We focused the PPI analyses on the BART task, given that both affective and cognitive control regions are involved during the task (Schonberg et al., 2012), whereas the GNG task targets primarily cognitive control-related brain function.”

    From The effects of poor quality sleep on brain function and risk taking in adolescence (2013) · cites this paper as Schonberg et al., 2012

  • The insula has shown heightened activation among adults during the BART.

    “Indeed, the insula is a brain region involved in tracking risk in the environment (Singer et al., 2009) and has shown heightened activation among adults during the BART (Schonberg et al., 2012).”

    From The effects of poor quality sleep on brain function and risk taking in adolescence (2013) · cites this paper as Schonberg et al., 2012

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schonberg, T., Fox, C. R., Mumford, J. A., Congdon, E., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2012
Volume
6
Pages
80-80
ISSN
  • 1662-453X (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-4548
OpenAlex
W2161843346
Cited by
162
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0433693)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
ventromedial prefrontal cortex, risk-taking, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, value calculation, expected value, gambling

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