CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Functional connectivity of specific resting-state networks predicts trust and reciprocity in the trust game

Open access
Bellucci, Gabriele, Hahn, Tim, Deshpande, Gopikrishna, Krueger, Frank·2019·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
DOI 10.3758/s13415-018-00654-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Economic games are used to elicit a social, conflictual situation in which people have to make decisions weighing self-related and collective interests. Combining these games with task-based fMRI has been shown to be successful in investigating the neural underpinnings of cooperative behaviors. However, it remains elusive to which extent resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) represents an individual's propensity to prosocial behaviors in the context of economic games. Here, we investigated whether task-free RSFC predicts individual differences in the propensity to trust and reciprocate in a one-round trust game (TG) employing a prediction-analytics framework. Our results demonstrated that individual differences in the propensity to trust and reciprocity could be predicted by individual differences in the RSFC. Different subnetworks of the default-mode network associated with mentalizing exclusively predicted trust and reciprocity. Moreover, reciprocity was further predicted by the frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular networks associated with cognitive control and saliency, respectively. Our results contribute to a better understanding of how complex social behaviors are enrooted in large-scale intrinsic brain dynamics, which may represent neuromarkers for impairment of prosocial behavior in mental health disorders.

Overview

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 · 10.3758/s13415-018-00654-3

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Functional connectivity of the precuneus with the AI during rest has been previously found to predict trust and reciprocity in non-lonely individuals.

    “Importantly, the functional connectivity of the precuneus with the AI during rest has been previously found to predict trust and reciprocity in non‐lonely individuals.[ 34 , 35 ]”

    From Loneliness and the Social Brain: How Perceived Social Isolation Impairs Human Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Multivariate regression analyses report that resting-state connectivity involving the anterior insula and precuneus was selected to predict reciprocity, and that connectivity involving the precuneus was selected to predict trust. They do not establish that connectivity specifically between the precuneus and anterior insula predicted both behaviors. The Subjects section does not identify participants as non-lonely or report a loneliness measure. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The mPFC predicts trusting behavior.

    “and predict trusting behavior.[ 34 , 41 ]”

    From Loneliness and the Social Brain: How Perceived Social Isolation Impairs Human Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. Acevedo, M., & Krueger, J. I. (2005). Evidential reasoning in the prisoner's dilemma. American Journal of Psychology, 118(3), 431-457. · DOI
  2. Aimone, J. A., & Houser, D. (2012). What you don’t know won’t hurt you: A laboratory analysis of betrayal aversion. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 571-588. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9314-z · DOI
  3. Alavash, M., Lim, S.-J., Thiel, C., Sehm, B., Deserno, L., & Obleser, J. (2017). Dopaminergic modulation of brain signal variability and the functional connectome during cognitive performance. bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/130021 · DOI
  4. Başar, E. (1998). Brain function and oscillations. Berlin; New York: Springer. · DOI
  5. Bellucci, G., Chernyak, S. V., Goodyear, K., Eickhoff, S. B., & Krueger, F. (2017). Neural signatures of trust in reciprocity: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapp, 38(3), 1233-1248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23451 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bellucci, G., Feng, C., Camilleri, J., Eickhoff, S. B., & Krueger, F. (2018). The role of the anterior insula in social norm compliance and enforcement: Evidence from coordinate-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 378-389. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.024 · DOI
  7. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bicchieri, C. (2005). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). The brain's default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Annals of New York Academy Science, 1124, 1-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.011 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., & Verhoogen, E. (2003). Playing both roles in the trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(2), 195-216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(02)00093-8 · DOI
  12. Burnham, T., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (2000). Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(1), 57-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(00)00108-6 · DOI
  13. Caceda, R., James, G. A., Gutman, D. A., & Kilts, C. D. (2015). Organization of intrinsic functional brain connectivity predicts decisions to reciprocate social behavior. Behav Brain Res, 292, 478-483. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.07.008 · DOI
  14. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 225-231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00094-9 · DOI
  15. Chang, L. J., Smith, A., Dufwenberg, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). Triangulating the neural, psychological, and economic bases of guilt aversion. Neuron, 70(3), 560-572. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.056 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., & Emonds, G. (2013). When do people cooperate? The neuroeconomics of prosocial decision making. Brain Cognitive, 81(1), 95-117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.09.009 · DOI
  18. Derks, J., Van Scheppingen, M. A., Lee, N. C., & Krabbendam, L. (2015). Trust and mindreading in adolescents: the moderating role of social value orientation. Frontier of Psychology, 6, 965. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00965 · DOI
  19. Dosenbach, N. U., Fair, D. A., Miezin, F. M., Cohen, A. L., Wenger, K. K., Dosenbach, R. A., . . . Petersen, S. E. (2007). Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(26), 11073-11078. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704320104 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Dosenbach, N. U., Nardos, B., Cohen, A. L., Fair, D. A., Power, J. D., Church, J. A., . . . Schlaggar, B. L. (2010). Prediction of individual brain maturity using fMRI. Science, 329(5997), 1358-1361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194144 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Dosenbach, N. U., Visscher, K. M., Palmer, E. D., Miezin, F. M., Wenger, K. K., Kang, H. C., . . . Petersen, S. E. (2006). A core system for the implementation of task sets. Neuron, 50(5), 799-812. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.04.031 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Emonds, G., Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Vandervliet, E. J., & Parizel, P. M. (2012). The cognitive demands on cooperation in social dilemmas: an fMRI study. Soc Neurosci, 7(5), 494-509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2012.655426 · DOI
  23. Emonds, G., Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Vandervliet, E. J. M., & Parizel, P. M. (2011). Comparing the neural basis of decision making in social dilemmas of people with different social value orientations, a fMRI study. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 4(1), 11-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020151 · DOI
  24. Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2008). Testing theories of fairness—Intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 62, 287-303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.06.001 · DOI
  25. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., & Riedl, A. (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? an experimental investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2), 437-459. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2118338 · DOI
  26. Ferguson, E., Heckman, J. J., & Corr, P. (2011). Personality and economics: Overview and proposed framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 201-209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.030 · DOI
  27. Fett, A.-K. J., Gromann, P. M., Giampietro, V., Shergill, S. S., & Krabbendam, L. (2014a). Default distrust? An fMRI investigation of the neural development of trust and cooperation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 9(4), 395-402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss144 · DOI
  28. Fett, A. K. J., Shergill, S. S., Gromann, P. M., Dumontheil, I., Blakemore, S. J., Yakub, F., & Krabbendam, L. (2014b). Trust and social reciprocity in adolescence - A matter of perspective-taking. J Adolesc, 37(2), 175-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.11.011 · DOI
  29. Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2010). Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review, 100(1), 541-556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.541 · DOI
  30. Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 102(27), 9673-9678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504136102 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 358(1431), 459-473. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Gabrieli, J. D., Ghosh, S. S., & Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. (2015). Prediction as a humanitarian and pragmatic contribution from human cognitive neuroscience. Neuron, 85(1), 11-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.047 · DOI
  33. Gächter, S., Kolle, F., & Quercia, S. (2017). Reciprocity and the tragedies of maintaining and providing the commons. Natural Human Behavior, 1(9), 650-656. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0191-5 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Gintis, H. (2000). Beyond Homo economicus: Evidence from experimental economics. Ecological Economics, 35(3), 311-322. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(00)00216-0 · DOI
  35. Gordon, E. M., Laumann, T. O., Gilmore, A. W., Newbold, D. J., Greene, D. J., Berg, J. J., . . . Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2017). Precision functional mapping of individual human brains. Neuron, 95(4), 791-807 e797. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.011 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Gusnard, D. A., Akbudak, E., Shulman, G. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2001). Medial prefrontal cortex and self-referential mental activity: Relation to a default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 98(7), 4259-4264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.071043098 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Hahn, T., Notebaert, K., Anderl, C., Reicherts, P., Wieser, M., Kopf, J., . . . Windmann, S. (2015a). Reliance on functional resting-state network for stable task control predicts behavioral tendency for cooperation. Neuroimage, 118, 231-236. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.093 · DOI
  39. Hahn, T., Notebaert, K., Anderl, C., Teckentrup, V., Kassecker, A., & Windmann, S. (2015b). How to trust a perfect stranger: Predicting initial trust behavior from resting-state brain-electrical connectivity. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 10(6), 809-813. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu122 · DOI
  40. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning (2nd ed. ed.): Springer. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Haufe, S., Meinecke, F., Gorgen, K., Dahne, S., Haynes, J. D., Blankertz, B., & Biessmann, F. (2014). On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging. Neuroimage, 87, 96-110. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.067 · DOI
  42. Hayashi, N., Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Yamagishi, T. (1999). Reciprocity, trust, and the sense of control - A cross-societal study. Rationality and Society, 11(1), 27-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/104346399011001002 · DOI
  43. Ibanez, M. I., Sabater-Grande, G., Barreda-Tarrazona, I., Mezquita, L., Lopez-Ovejero, S., Villa, H., . . . Georgantzis, N. (2016). Take the money and run: Psychopathic behavior in the trust game. Front Psychol, 7, 1866. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01866 · DOI
  44. Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865-889. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007 · DOI
  45. Kannurpatti, S. S., Rypma, B., & Biswal, B. B. (2012). Prediction of task-related BOLD fMRI with amplitude signatures of resting-state fMRI. Front Syst Neurosci, 6, 7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2012.00007 · DOI
  46. Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V., & Fehr, E. (2006). Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science, 314(5800), 829-832. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129156 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Knoch, D., Schneider, F., Schunk, D., Hohmann, M., & Fehr, E. (2009). Disrupting the prefrontal cortex diminishes the human ability to build a good reputation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 106(49), 20895-20899. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911619106 · DOI
  48. Krueger, F., Barbey, A. K., & Grafman, J. (2009). The medial prefrontal cortex mediates social event knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 103-109. doi:DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.005 · DOI
  49. Krueger, F., Grafman, J., & McCabe, K. (2008). Neural correlates of economic game playing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 363(1511), 3859-3874. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0165 · DOI
  50. Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahn, R., Strenziok, M., . . . Grafman, J. (2007). Neural correlates of trust. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 104(50), 20084-20089. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710103104 · DOI
  51. Li, J., Xiao, E., Houser, D., & Montague, P. R. (2009). Neural responses to sanction threats in two-party economic exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 106(39), 16835-16840. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908855106 · DOI
  52. Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426-441. · DOI · Paper page
  53. McCarthy, M. H., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2017). Dispositional pathways to trust: Self-esteem and agreeableness interact to predict trust and negative emotional disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 95-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000093 · DOI
  54. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci, 24, 167-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189 · DOI
  56. Nihonsugi, T., Ihara, A., & Haruno, M. (2015). Selective increase of intention-based economic decisions by noninvasive brain stimulation to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci, 35(8), 3412-3419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3885-14.2015 · DOI
  57. Noble, S., Scheinost, D., Finn, E. S., Shen, X., Papademetris, X., McEwen, S. C., . . . Constable, R. T. (2017a). Multisite reliability of MR-based functional connectivity. Neuroimage, 146, 959-970. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.020 · DOI
  58. Noble, S., Spann, M. N., Tokoglu, F., Shen, X., Constable, R. T., & Scheinost, D. (2017b). Influences on the test-retest reliability of functional connectivity MRI and its relationship with behavioral utility. Cereb Cortex, 27(11), 5415-5429. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx230 · DOI
  59. Pascual-Marqui, R. D., Lehmann, D., Koukkou, M., Kochi, K., Anderer, P., Saletu, B., . . . Kinoshita, T. (2011). Assessing interactions in the brain with exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci, 369(1952), 3768-3784. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0081 · DOI
  60. Repovš, G., & Barch, D. M. (2012). Working memory related brain network connectivity in individuals with schizophrenia and their siblings. Front Hum Neurosci, 6, 137. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00137 · DOI
  61. Rilling, J., Gutman, D., Zeh, T., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G., & Kilts, C. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron, 35(2), 395-405. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Rilling, J. K., King-Casas, B., & Sanfey, A. G. (2008). The neurobiology of social decision-making. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 18(2), 159-165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2008.06.003 · DOI
  63. Romano, A., Balliet, D., Yamagishi, T., & Liu, J. H. (2017). Parochial trust and cooperation across 17 societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712921114 · DOI
  64. Rosenberg, M. D., Casey, B. J., & Holmes, A. J. (2018). Prediction complements explanation in understanding the developing brain. Nat Commun, 9(1), 589. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02887-9 · DOI
  65. Rosenberg, M. D., Finn, E. S., Scheinost, D., Papademetris, X., Shen, X., Constable, R. T., & Chun, M. M. (2016). A neuromarker of sustained attention from whole-brain functional connectivity. Nat Neurosci, 19(1), 165-171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4179 · DOI
  66. Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), 1755-1758. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2008). Episodic simulation of future events: Concepts, data, and applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1124, 39-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.001 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., Glover, G. H., Kenna, H., . . . Greicius, M. D. (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci, 27(9), 2349-2356. doi: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 264-268. doi:DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x · DOI
  70. Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Gron, G., & Fehr, E. (2007). The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron, 56(1), 185-196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.09.011 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(2), 364-382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2006.07.006 · DOI
  72. Sutterlin, S., Herbert, C., Schmitt, M., Kubler, A., & Vogele, C. (2011). Overcoming selfishness: reciprocity, inhibition, and cardiac-autonomic control in the ultimatum game. Front Psychol, 2, 173. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00173 · DOI
  73. Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). The traits one can trust: Dissecting reciprocity and kindness as determinants of trustworthy behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 41(11), 1523-1536. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215600530 · DOI
  74. van 't Wout, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2008). Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition, 108(3), 796-803. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.002 · DOI
  75. van den Bos, W., van Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S. A., & Crone, E. A. (2009). What motivates repayment? neural correlates of reciprocity in the trust game. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 4(3), 294-304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp009 · DOI
  76. Woo, C. W., Chang, L. J., Lindquist, M. A., & Wager, T. D. (2017). Building better biomarkers: brain models in translational neuroimaging. Nat Neurosci, 20(3), 365-377. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4478 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Xiang, T., Ray, D., Lohrenz, T., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (2012). Computational phenotyping of two-person interactions reveals differential neural response to depth-of-thought. PLoS Comput Biol, 8(12), e1002841. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002841 · DOI
  78. Zhao, K., & Smillie, L. D. (2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 19(3), 277-302. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314553709 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bellucci, G., Hahn, T., Deshpande, G., & Krueger, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • University of Alabama (US)
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-10-24
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
165-176
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
DOI
10.3758/s13415-018-00654-3
OpenAlex
W2898386709
Cited by
55
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (P-57191936 to F. K.)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
resting-state functional connectivity, trust, reciprocity, trust game, default mode network, mentalization, frontoparietal network, cingulo-opercular network, cognitive control, salience, prosocial behavior, individual differences, neuromarkers
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Neural Pathways, Social Behavior, Trust

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