Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Update
Research FocusSensitivity of the brain to loss aversion during risky gambles
Research Focus
Introduction
When deciding between risky options, humans are about twice as sensitive to the possibility of losing goods or money than to the possibility of winning them. Prospect theory, the leading behavioural model of decision making under risk, uses the concept of loss aversion (as measured by the willingness to reject gambles) to explain risk aversion during monetary mixed (gain or loss) gambles (Box 1) [1]. Several recent brain imaging studies have suggested that higher sensitivity to loss entails emotional processes recruiting structures such as the amygdala and the anterior insula 2, 3, 4, 5. However, the recent study by Tom et al. reported that neither of these two brain regions showed increasing activity with the size of potential losses [6]. In fact, the same neural substrates (e.g. striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex) exhibited both decreased activity with potential losses and increased activity with potential gains (Figure 1). Moreover, there was a diminished neural sensitivity to losses among individuals who were less loss averse (i.e. more risk seeking), which might shed light on several neuropsychiatric and behavioural disorders, such as impulsive and risky behaviour, pathological gambling as well as substance abuse. This study elegantly illustrates how the integration of theoretical models and brain imaging approaches provides a better understanding of decision making in risky situations.
Section snippets
The study: deciding between risky options
Tom et al.[6] scanned subjects while they had to accept or reject gambles offering a 50/50 chance of winning an amount of money (range = $10–$40 in $2 increments) or losing another amount ($5–$20 in $1 increments) (Figure 1). All possible combinations of gains and losses were presented. Subjects had to bring $60 on the scanning day and were told that they could actually lose this money in the scanner. Participants pressed one of four buttons to indicate their willingness to play each gamble
Single or different neural substrates for potential gains and loss?
On the one hand, brain regions showing increased activity with potential gains included a ‘gain-brain network’ (striatum, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex and midbrain) previously observed during anticipation and receipt of monetary gain 7, 8, 9 or rewarding juice [10]. Thus, correlation with the size of potential gains when evaluating gambles without expectation of immediate reinforcement elicits neural responses similar to those observed during anticipation and
Concluding remarks
This study provides important new insights into the functional properties of decision making in humans. The reduced neural sensitivity to losses among individuals who were less loss averse is particularly relevant for several neuropsychiatric and behavioural disorders, such as substance abuse and pathological gambling, associated with increased risk taking and impulsive behaviour. These individual differences in behavioural and neural loss aversion might be related to naturally occurring
Acknowledgements
J-C.D. is partially supported by a European reintegration grant from the 6th Framework Program, the Fyssen and the Medical Research foundations. I thank G. Coricelli, P. Domenech and G. Sescousse for comments on an early version of the manuscript.
References (15)
- et al.
The neural basis of financial risk taking
Neuron
(2005) Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses
Neuron
(2001)A region of mesial prefrontal cortex tracks monetarily rewarding outcomes: characterization with rapid event-related fMRI
Neuroimage
(2003)Neural responses during anticipation of a primary taste reward
Neuron
(2002)- et al.
An insular view of anxiety
Biol. Psychiatry
(2006) - et al.
Using multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data to interpret overlapping functional activations
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2007) Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk
Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res.
(2005)
Cited by (29)
Common and distinct neural substrates of the money illusion in win and loss domains
2019, NeuroImageCitation Excerpt :Investigations on the neural circuits involved in the processing of rewards and punishment have produced inconsistent results. On the one hand, a large number of studies have suggested that monetary gains and losses activate a similar fronto-subcortical network, and differ only in degree (Dreher, 2007; Gottfried et al., 2003; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005; Tom et al., 2007). On the other hand, some studies have indicated that reward and punishment outcomes may involve different neural substrates (Frank et al., 2004; Yacubian et al., 2006).
Reduced willingness to invest effort in schizophrenia with high negative symptoms regardless of reward stimulus presentation and reward value
2018, Comprehensive PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :Secondly, willingness to invest effort measures captured by our task could be understood as neurobiological markers and, thus, they may be conceptually located closer to the neurobiological basis of the illness rather than the illness phenotype and its resulting behavior. Contrary to the majority of the literature on reward [45], both patients and controls exerted higher effort in gain trials than in loss avoidance trials. Two different theories may explain these apparent counterintuitive results.
Beta oscillations and reward processing: Coupling oscillatory activity and hemodynamic responses
2015, NeuroImageCitation Excerpt :The Gain > Loss contrast yielded the expected activations in reward-related areas, especially in bilateral ventral striatum and ventromedial PFC and also in bilateral hippocampi (activation in these reward related areas survived a p < 0.001 FWE-corrected threshold at the cluster level; see Fig. 2B and Table 1). At the selected threshold, the Loss > Gain contrast yielded no significant activations, suggesting that a similar brain network is involved in processing both gains and losses but with a differential amount of activation (increasing with gains and decreasing with losses; Dreher, 2007; Tom et al., 2007; Ripollés et al., 2014; Càmara et al., 2009 and Càmara et al., 2010). Thus, this contrast was not further analyzed.
Altered cingulo-striatal function underlies reward drive deficits in schizophrenia
2015, Schizophrenia ResearchCitation Excerpt :Our behavioral findings of non-advantageous positive over negative reinforcer correspond to prior findings of selective deficits in positive reinforcement learning in schizophrenia and incentive motivational deficits in first-episode psychosis (Waltz et al., 2007; Murray et al., 2008a). We also observed a decline in Reward Approach accuracy during Pre-reversal due to anticipated loss in healthy controls, which conforms to the theory of loss aversion (Dreher, 2007). The absence of Reward Uncertainty-related accuracy decline in patients is consistent with a prior study demonstrating a failure in adjusting value according to the prospect of loss in schizophrenia (Trémeau et al., 2008).
Evaluation of an operant successive negative contrast task as a method to study affective state in rodents
2012, Behavioural Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :An individual's sensitivity to reward gain or loss has been proposed to be influenced by emotional state [1]. In general people are more sensitive to possible reward losses than gains [2] and evidence shows that the behavioural and neurophysiological responses of people in a negative affective state show an enhanced sensitivity to loss or failure [3]. Increased sensitivity to loss appears to be symptomatic of negative affective states in people and it is hypothesised that biases in information processing and underlying mechanisms relating to the evaluation of reward gains and losses, may reliably reflect affective state in animals [4].
Functional Neuroimaging of Reward Circuitry Responsivity to Monetary Gains and Losses in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
2009, Biological PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :Numbing of responsiveness to positive stimuli and anhedonia are common in PTSD patients (1) and are considered by some to be the most specific diagnostic features of the disorder (36). The pattern of results obtained in the healthy subjects (viz., striatal activation to gains accompanied by striatal deactivation to losses) is consistent with prior observations (21,37–43). Interestingly, the present PTSD subjects showed not only less striatal activation to gains but also a trend toward less striatal deactivation to losses (which would have been statistically significant had this result been predicted a priori).