Figure 3 | Scientific Reports

Figure 3

From: Attraction Effect in Risky Choice Can Be Explained by Subjective Distance Between Choice Alternatives

Figure 3

FMRI Results. (A) Brain activity in the aINS was significantly higher (z > 3.1, cluster size > 50, displayed in red) during decision making in the decoy condition compared to the filler condition. (B) Evidence in favor of the chosen option, operationalized as choice probability predicted by MDFT, showed a positive correlation (z > 3.1, cluster p < 0.05, displayed in red) with brain activity in mOFT/VMPFC and PCC and a negative correlation (z > 3.1, cluster p < 0.05, displayed in blue) with brain activity in bilateral aINS, bilateral DLPFC, and DMPFC. (C) In MDFT, the subjective distance between two alternatives is determined by the distance in the indifference direction and the distance in the dominance direction. Importantly, a specific parameter, namely the relative distance weighting parameter, allows for an overweighting of the distance in the dominance direction, leading to an increase in the subjective distance for dominated alternatives and a decrease in the AE. In the displayed example the subjective location of Option C would thus move to C’ or C” with an increasing relative distance weighting parameter. (D) Individual differences in the relative distance weighting parameter were related to neural representations of evidence in favor of the chosen option in PCC (z > 3.1, cluster p < 0.1, displayed in green). A decrease in the relative distance weighting led to decreased brain activity in the PCC.

Back to article page