Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Neural investigation of default effects on decision-making under uncertainty
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 23 February 2026

Neural investigation of default effects on decision-making under uncertainty

  • Jiaxin Yu1,
  • Xu Liu2,
  • Jianling Yu3 &
  • …
  • Yan Wang4 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Neuroscience
  • Psychology

Abstract

Default options have increasingly become a common tool for policymakers in guiding individuals’ behaviors. However, the neural mechanisms of default effects on decision-making, particularly in uncertain situations, remain unclear. In the present study, participants were asked to decide whether to stick with the default options in a gambling task, and their scalp potentials were recorded. The behavioral results indicated that the default effects did exist, given that participants demonstrated a significantly higher likelihood of selecting uncertain payoffs when these were presented as default options, as opposed to when certain payoffs were designated as defaults. The electroencephalography (EEG) data revealed that the assessment of default setting, comparing default uncertain options with default certain options, was reflected not only in early ERP components (such as P200 and MFN) but also in increased activity within the theta frequency band. Certain payoffs elicited larger P200 and MFN amplitudes compared to uncertain payoffs under default settings, and time-frequency analysis revealed greater theta power when the default options involved payoffs (rather than uncertain payoffs). Additionally, ambiguity aversion manifested not only in behavioral tendencies but also in distinct neural signatures, reflected across multiple ERP components associated with early evaluation (such as P200, MFN) and later motivational processing (such as P300, LPP). To further capture how these neural responses relate to behavior, we applied representational similarity analysis (RSA), which revealed that choice patterns were systematically associated with frontal neural activity during an early evaluative stage. Moreover, regression analyses indicated that later-stage neural responses, particularly the LPP, were predictive of individuals’ subsequent uncertainty choices, suggesting that both early evaluation processes and later motivational evaluations contribute to shaping behavior under uncertainty and defaults.

Data availability

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Camerer, C. & Weber, M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 325–370 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D. & Camerer, C. F. Neural Systems Responding to Degrees of Uncertainty in Human Decision-Making. Science 310 (5754), 1680–1683. https://doi.org/10/bj6vkz (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  3. O’Donoghue, T. & Somerville, J. Modeling risk aversion in economics. J. Economic Perspect. 32 (2), 91–114 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barham, B. L., Chavas, J. P., Fitz, D., Salas, V. R. & Schechter, L. The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 97, 204–218 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ellsberg, D. Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75 (4), 643–669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Camerer, C. F. & Kunreuther, H. Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy Implications. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 8 (4), 565. https://doi.org/10.2307/3325045 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Keren, G. & Gerritsen, L. E. M. On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta. Psychol. 103 (1–2), 149–172 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Trautmann, S. T., Vieider, F. M. & Wakker, P. P. Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences. J. Risk Uncertain. 36 (3), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-008-9038-9 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Preuschoff, K., Mohr, P. N. C. & Hsu, M. Decision making under uncertainty. Front. NeuroSci. 7, 218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00218 (2013).

  10. Dhingra, N., Gorn, Z., Kener, A. & Dana, J. The default pull: An experimental demonstration of subtle default effects on preferences. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 7 (1), 8 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson, E. J. & Goldstein, D. Do Defaults Save Lives? Science 302, 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  12. McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J. & Finkelstein, S. R. Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychol. Sci. 17, 414–420 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (Yale University Press, 2008).

  14. Madrian, B. C. & Shea, D. The Power of Suggestion: Inertia 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior. Quart. J. Econ. 116 (4), 1149–1187 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goswami, I. & Urminsky, O. When should the Ask be a Nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations. J. Mark. Res. 53 (5), 829–846 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G. & Liu, K. Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. J. Experimental Psychology: Appl. 17 (4), 332–341 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Giuliani, F. et al. The joint effect of framing and defaults on choice behavior. Psychol. Res. 87 (4), 1114–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01726-3 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou, Z., Yu, R. & Zhou, X. To do or not to do? Action enlarges the FRN and P300 effects in outcome evaluation. Neuropsychologia 48 (12), 3606–3613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.08.010 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bland, A. R. & Schaefer, A. Electrophysiological correlates of decision making under varying levels of uncertainty. Brain Res. 1417, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.08.031 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Xu, S., Wang, M., Liu, Q., Wang, C. & Zhang, C. Exploring the valence-framing effect: Gain frame enhances behavioral and brain sensitivity to the failure of decision-making under uncertainty. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 153, 166–172 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chandrakumar, D., Feuerriegel, D., Bode, S., Grech, M. & Keage, H. A. D. Event-Related Potentials in Relation to Risk-Taking: A Systematic Review. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 12, 111. https://doi.org/10/gfv4zz (2018).

  22. Wang, G. et al. Neural Dynamics of Processing Probability Weight and Monetary Magnitude in the Evaluation of a Risky Reward. Front. Psychol. 10, 554. https://doi.org/10/gp4hgh (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Polezzi, D., Lotto, L., Daum, I., Sartori, G. & Rumiati, R. Predicting outcomes of decisions in the brain. Behav. Brain. Res. 187 (1), 116–122 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Burnside, R. & Ullsperger, M. Social comparison impacts stimulus evaluation in a competitive social learning task. PLOS ONE. 15 (6), e0234397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234397 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Liang, G., Huang, L. & Wang, Y. Combining hierarchical drift-diffusion model and event-related potentials to reveal how do natural sounds nudge green product purchases. Physiol. Behav. 287, 114651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2024.114651 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Boksem, M. A. S. & De Cremer, D. Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Soc. Neurosci. 5 (1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910903202666 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang, A. et al. You are excusable! Neural correlates of economic neediness on empathic concern and fairness perception. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 22 (1), 99–111 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schuermann, B., Endrass, T. & Kathmann, N. Neural correlates of feedback processing in decision-making under risk. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00204 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wang, L., Zheng, J., Huang, S. & Sun, H. P300 and Decision Making under Risk and Ambiguity. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2015, 1–7. https://doi.org/10/gb5xjj (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ferrari, V., Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M. & Lang, P. J. Repetitive exposure: Brain and reflex measures of emotion and attention. Psychophysiology 48 (4), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01083.x (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schwab, D., Zorjan, S. & Schienle, A. Face the food: Food plating with facial patterns influences appetite and event-related brain potentials. Motivation Emot. 45 (1), 95–102 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Buzsaki, G. Neuronal Oscillations in Cortical Networks. Science 304 (5679), 1926–1929. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1099745 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morales, S. & Bowers, M. E. Time-frequency analysis methods and their application in developmental EEG data. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 54, 101067 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cohen, M. X. Hippocampal-prefrontal connectivity predicts midfrontal oscillations and long-term memory performance. Curr. Biol. 21, 19001905 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rajan, A. et al. Theta Oscillations Index Frontal Decision-Making and Mediate Reciprocal Frontal–Parietal Interactions in Willed Attention. Cereb. Cortex. 29 (7), 2832–2843. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy149 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Riddle, J., Vogelsang, D. A., Hwang, K., Cellier, D. & D’Esposito, M. Distinct Oscillatory Dynamics Underlie Different Components of Hierarchical Cognitive Control. J. Neurosci. 40 (25), 4945–4953 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Berger, B. et al. Dynamic regulation of interregional cortical communication by slow brain oscillations during working memory. Nat. Communication. 10, 4242 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cavanagh, J. F., Figueroa, C. M., Cohen, M. X. & Frank, M. J. Frontal Theta Reflects Uncertainty and Unexpectedness during Exploration and Exploitation. Cereb. Cortex. 22 (11), 2575–2586. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr332 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cichy, R. M. & Pantazis, D. Multivariate pattern analysis of MEG and EEG: A comparison of representational structure in time and space. NeuroImage 158, 441–454 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cichy, R. M., Kriegeskorte, N., Jozwik, K. M., van den Bosch, J. J. & Charest, I. The spatiotemporal neural dynamics underlying perceived similarity for real-world objects. NeuroImage 194, 12–24 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dobs, K., Isik, L., Pantazis, D. & Kanwisher, N. How face perception unfolds over time. Nat. Commun. 10 (1), 1258 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Muukkonen, I., Ölander, K., Numminen, J. & Salmela, V. R. Spatio-temporal dynamics of face perception. NeuroImage 209, 116531 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yang, X., Gao, M., Shi, J., Ye, H. & Chen, S. Modulating the Activity of the DLPFC and OFC Has Distinct Effects on Risk and Ambiguity Decision-Making: A tDCS Study. Front. Psychol. 8, 1417. https://doi.org/10/gbvbxr (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Li, Y. et al. Hemispheric mPFC asymmetry in decision making under ambiguity and risk: An fNIRS study. Behav. Brain. Res. 359, 657–663. https://doi.org/10/gp4m3g (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Verleger, R., Jaśkowski, P. & Wascher, E. Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. J. Psychophysiol. 19, 165–181 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sun, S., Yu, R. & Wang, S. Outcome saliency modulates behavioral decision switching. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 14288 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ness, T., Langlois, V. J., Novick, J. M. & Kim, A. E. Theta-band neural oscillations reflect cognitive control during language processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 153 (9), 2279 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rhodes, N. et al. Measurement of frontal midline theta oscillations using OPM-MEG. NeuroImage 271, 120024 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gu, R. et al. Self-affirmation enhances the processing of uncertainty: An event-related potential study. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 19 (2), 327–337 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T. & Platt, M. L. Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron 49 (5), 765–775 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Naghel, S., Vallesi, A., Sabouri Moghadam, H. & Nazari, M. A. Neural differences in relation to risk preferences during reward processing: an event-related potential study. Brain Sci. 13 (9), 1235. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13091235 (2023).

  52. Delorme, A. & Makeig, S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of singletrial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods. 134 (1), 9–21 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Makeig, S., Bell, A. J., Jung, T. P. & Sejnowski, T. J. Independent component analysis of electroencephalographic data. In: Touretzky, D., Mozer, M., Hasselmo, M. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing System, vol. 8, pp. 145–151. (1996).

  54. Rigoni, D., Polezzi, D., Rumiati, R., Guarino, R. & Sartori, G. When people matter more than money: An ERPs study. Brain Res. Bull. 81 (4–5), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2009.12.003 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Marciano, D. et al. Dynamic expectations: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of sub-second updates in reward predictions. Commun. Biology. 6 (1), 871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05199-x (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hajcak, G., Dunning, J. P. & Foti, D. Motivated and controlled attention to emotion: Time-course of the late positive potential. Clin. Neurophysiol. 120 (3), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.028 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yu, J., Wang, Y., Yu, J., Zhang, G. & Cong, F. Nudge for justice: An ERP investigation of default effects on trade-offs between equity and efficiency. Neuropsychologia 149, 107663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107663 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhang, G., Tian, L., Chen, H. & Li, P. Effect of Parametric Variation of Center Frequency and Bandwidth of Morlet Wavelet Transform on TimeFrequency Analysis of Event-Related Potentials. Proc. 2017 Chin. Intellig. Syst. Confer. 459, 693–702. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6496-8_63

  59. Zhang, G., Zhang, C., Cao, S. & Xia, X. Multi-domain Features of the Non-phase-locked Component of Interest Extracted from ERP Data by Tensor Decomposition. Brain Topogr. 33, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-019-00750-8 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Liu, X., Wei, S., Zhao, X., Bi, Y. & Hu, L. Establishing the relationship between subjective perception and neural responses: Insights from correlation analysis and representational similarity analysis. NeuroImage 295, 120650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120650 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nili, H. et al. A Toolbox for Representational Similarity Analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10 (4), e1003553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003553 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics. J. Econ. Lit. 43 (1), 9–64. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051053737843 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Zlatev, J. J., Daniels, D. P., Kim, H. & Neale, M. A. Default neglect in attempts at social influence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (52), 13643–13648. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712757114 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L. & Payne, J. W. A User’s Guide to Debiasing. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (1st ed., pp. 924–951). Wiley. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468333.ch33

  65. Wang, L., Zheng, J. & Lu, Q. Event-related potentials and the decision making under risk and ambiguity. International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Information Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI), 2014, 1–6. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/MFI.2014.6997653

  66. Botelho, C. et al. Uncertainty deconstructed: conceptual analysis and state-of-the-art review of the ERP correlates of risk and ambiguity in decision-making. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 23 (3), 522–542 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Goyer, J. P., Woldorff, M. G. & Huettel, S. A. Rapid Electrophysiological Brain Responses are Influenced by Both Valence and Magnitude of Monetary Rewards. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20 (11), 2058–2069. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20134 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Umemoto, A., HajiHosseini, A., Yates, M. E. & Holroyd, C. B. Reward-based contextual learning supported by anterior cingulate cortex. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 17 (3), 642–651. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-017-0502-3 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Polich, J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 118 (10), 2128–2148 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Yeung, N. & Sanfey, A. G. Independent Coding of Reward Magnitude and Valence in the Human Brain. J. Neurosci. 24 (28), 6258–6264. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4537-03.2004 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Gu, Y., Gu, S., Lei, Y. & Li, H. From Uncertainty to Anxiety: How Uncertainty Fuels Anxiety in a Process Mediated by Intolerance of Uncertainty. Neural Plasticity, 2020, 1–8. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8866386

  72. Wu, Y., Zhou, Y., van Dijk, E., Leliveld, M. C. & Zhou, X. Social comparison affects brain responses to fairness in asset division: an ERP study with the ultimatum game. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5, 131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00131 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Bamford, S. et al. The late positive potential: a neural marker of the regulation of emotion-based approach-avoidance actions? Biol. Psychol. 105, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.01.009 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Miraghaie, A. M. et al. Electrophysiological markers of fairness and selfishness revealed by a combination of dictator and ultimatum games. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 16, 765720 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Sun, S., Zhen, S., Fu, Z., Wu, D. A., Shimojo, S., Adolphs, R., … Wang, S. (2017).Decision ambiguity is mediated by a late positive potential originating from cingulate cortex. NeuroImage, 157, 400–414.

  76. Yu, R., Mobbs, D., Seymour, B. & Calder, A. J. Insula and Striatum Mediate the Default Bias. J. Neurosci. 30 (44), 14702–14707. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3772-10.2010 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature 402, 179–181 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Brown, J. W. & Braver, T. S. Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex. Science 307, 1118–1121 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Hayden, B. Y. & Platt, M. L. Neurons in anterior cingulate cortex multiplex information about reward and action. J. Neurosci. 30, 3339–3346 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Billeke, P. et al. Someone has to give in: Theta oscillations correlate with adaptive behavior in social bargaining. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. 9 (12), 2041–2048. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu012 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Gomarus, H. K., Althaus, M., Wijers, A. A. & Minderaa, R. B. The effects of memory load and stimulus relevance on the EEG during a visual selective memory search task: an ERP and ERD/ERS study. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117 (4), 871–884 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Missonnier, P. et al. Frontal theta event-related synchronization: comparison of directed attention and working memory load effects. J. Neural Transm. 113 (10), 1477–1486 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cecere, R., Gross, J., Willis, A. & Thut, G. Being First Matters: Topographical Representational Similarity Analysis of ERP Signals Reveals Separate Networks for Audiovisual Temporal Binding Depending on the Leading Sense. J. Neurosci. 37 (21), 5274–5287. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2926-16.2017 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Chavez, R. S. & Heatherton, T. F. Representational Similarity of Social and Valence Information in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex. (2015).

  85. Kaneshiro, B., Guimaraes, M. P., Kim, H. S., Norcia, A. M. & Suppes, P. A Representational Similarity Analysis of the Dynamics of Object Processing Using Single-Trial EEG Classification. PLOS ONE. 10 (8), e0135697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135697 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Gehring, W. J. & Willoughby, A. R. The Medial Frontal Cortex and the Rapid Processing of Monetary Gains and Losses. Science 295 (5563), 2279–2282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1066893 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Martin, L. E. & Potts, G. F. Medial frontal event-related potentials and reward prediction: Do responses matter? Brain Cogn. 77 (1), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.04.001 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Christian, P. et al. Belief updating during social interactions: neural dynamics and causal role of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 44 (22), 1–11 (2024).

  89. Buskens, V., Kovacic, I., Rutterkamp, E., van de Rijt, A. & Terburg, D. Social preferences trump emotions in human responses to unfair offers. Sci. Rep. 13 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36715-y (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Bode, S. et al. Predicting Perceptual Decision Biases from Early Brain Activity. J. Neurosci. 32 (36), 12488–12498. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1708-12.2012 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Philiastides, M. G., Ratcliff, R. & Sajda, P. Neural Representation of Task Difficulty and Decision Making during Perceptual Categorization: A Timing Diagram. J. Neurosci. 26 (35), 8965–8975. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1655-06.2006 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 72303202] and Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of Ministry of Education of China under Grant [Number 22YJCZH181].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China

    Jiaxin Yu

  2. Department of Pain Medicine, Shenzhen Municipal Key Laboratory for Pain Medicine, Affiliated Nanshan Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518052, Guangdong, China

    Xu Liu

  3. School of Economics and Management, Dalian Minzu University, Dalian, China

    Jianling Yu

  4. School of Fintech, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian, Liaoning, 116025, People’s Republic of China

    Yan Wang

Authors
  1. Jiaxin Yu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xu Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianling Yu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yan Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Jiaxin Yu: Investigation, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. Xu Liu: Software, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Jianling Yu: Investigation. Yan Wang: Investigation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, J., Liu, X., Yu, J. et al. Neural investigation of default effects on decision-making under uncertainty. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41206-x

Download citation

  • Received: 02 September 2025

  • Accepted: 18 February 2026

  • Published: 23 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41206-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Nudge
  • Default effects
  • Risk
  • Ambiguity
  • ERP
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing