Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:The influence of emotion regulation on decision-making under risk

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 3. (A) Bilateral striatum correlated with increasing probability of reward during decision-making under risk. (B) Mean parameter estimates for left ventral striatum reveal an interaction between instruction (Look, Relax) and choice (risky and safe). (C) A similar result is observed in the right ventral striatum (+ SEM).

Figure 3 (A) Bilateral striatum correlated with increasing probability of reward during decision-making under risk. (B) Mean parameter estimates for left ventral striatum reveal an interaction between instruction (Look, Relax) and choice (risky and safe). (C) A similar result is observed in the right ventral striatum (+ SEM).

Related Figures (5)

We investigated the effect of cognitive regulation on risk- taking and its neural correlates using a [MRI experimental paradigm that included bot The cue phase consisted h a cue and a decision phase. of the presentation of a CS (CS+ or CS—) and a cognitive instruction (“Look,” “Relax,” or “Excite”). The decision p tation and comprised either hase followed the cue presen- a selection between risky and safe monetary lotteries (CS+ trials) or a nonmonetary con- trol decision between two di ure 1). Decision-making un fferent stamps (CS — trials; Fig- der risk was quantified as the proportion of trials in which the risky option was chosen for each type of cognitive instruction. Finally, we acquired postexperimental self-assessment of participants’ per- ceived success in using the cognitive strategies to probe how the successful application of emotion regulation mod- ulates decision-making under risk and its associated neural correlates.
We investigated the effect of cognitive regulation on risk- taking and its neural correlates using a [MRI experimental paradigm that included bot The cue phase consisted h a cue and a decision phase. of the presentation of a CS (CS+ or CS—) and a cognitive instruction (“Look,” “Relax,” or “Excite”). The decision p tation and comprised either hase followed the cue presen- a selection between risky and safe monetary lotteries (CS+ trials) or a nonmonetary con- trol decision between two di ure 1). Decision-making un fferent stamps (CS — trials; Fig- der risk was quantified as the proportion of trials in which the risky option was chosen for each type of cognitive instruction. Finally, we acquired postexperimental self-assessment of participants’ per- ceived success in using the cognitive strategies to probe how the successful application of emotion regulation mod- ulates decision-making under risk and its associated neural correlates.
Table 1. Financial Decisions Included in Experimental Paradigm
Table 1. Financial Decisions Included in Experimental Paradigm
Table 2. Regions that Correlated with Increasing Probability of Reward in the Regulator Group, g(FDR) < 0.01 BA = Brodmann’s area; L = left; R = right; FDR = false discovery rate
Table 2. Regions that Correlated with Increasing Probability of Reward in the Regulator Group, g(FDR) < 0.01 BA = Brodmann’s area; L = left; R = right; FDR = false discovery rate
Figure 2. Decrease in risky behavior as a function of successful regulation is displayed for the regulator group (+ SEM). An ANOVA was performed to probe differences in RT using instruction (Look and Relax) and choice (risky and safe) as within-subjects variables and group (regulator, nonregula- tor) as a between-subjects variable. No significant effects were observed for any of the contrasts, suggesting that RT did not differ as a function of instruction or choice, or across regulators and nonregulators.
Figure 2. Decrease in risky behavior as a function of successful regulation is displayed for the regulator group (+ SEM). An ANOVA was performed to probe differences in RT using instruction (Look and Relax) and choice (risky and safe) as within-subjects variables and group (regulator, nonregula- tor) as a between-subjects variable. No significant effects were observed for any of the contrasts, suggesting that RT did not differ as a function of instruction or choice, or across regulators and nonregulators.
Figure 4. The effect of instruction and choice in (A) the midbrain and (B) the insula. The left midbrain BOLD responses demonstrated an interaction of instruction and choice, such that activity to risky choices was significantly reduced after regulation (Relax) compared with after responding naturally (Look). A main effect of choice was observed in the left anterior insula, with greater responses to risky compared with safe choices (+ SEM).
Figure 4. The effect of instruction and choice in (A) the midbrain and (B) the insula. The left midbrain BOLD responses demonstrated an interaction of instruction and choice, such that activity to risky choices was significantly reduced after regulation (Relax) compared with after responding naturally (Look). A main effect of choice was observed in the left anterior insula, with greater responses to risky compared with safe choices (+ SEM).