Foundations of Neuroeconomics: From Philosophy to Practice

Clithero, John A.; Tankersley, Dharol; Huettel, Scott A.

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060298

Cited by 51 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 96 publications

(125 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At this time, the mean intensity of keypress behavior (K) has been associated with reward circuitry activity [14], [18], cortical thickness measures [19], and foci of genetic variability [18], [20], while variance-mean plots in electrophysiology [38] approximate the saturation plots we see with keypress behavior. These findings with (K) and (σ) variables underline the biological plausibility of the patterns described herein [124]. The apparent scaling of all patterns between group and individual data support the neuroeconomic perspective [10], [11], [33]–[37], [124] of combining engineering [64], [127], systems modeling [60], and neuroscience [128]–[130] approaches to the study of choice behavior, and may provide a route for quantitative phenotyping of psychiatric illness [47]–[49].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Recurrent, Robust and Scalable Patterns Underlie Human Approach and Avoidance

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundApproach and avoidance behavior provide a means for assessing the rewarding or aversive value of stimuli, and can be quantified by a keypress procedure whereby subjects work to increase (approach), decrease (avoid), or do nothing about time of exposure to a rewarding/aversive stimulus. To investigate whether approach/avoidance behavior might be governed by quantitative principles that meet engineering criteria for lawfulness and that encode known features of reward/aversion function, we evaluated whether keypress responses toward pictures with potential motivational value produced any regular patterns, such as a trade-off between approach and avoidance, or recurrent lawful patterns as observed with prospect theory.Methodology/Principal FindingsThree sets of experiments employed this task with beautiful face images, a standardized set of affective photographs, and pictures of food during controlled states of hunger and satiety. An iterative modeling approach to data identified multiple law-like patterns, based on variables grounded in the individual. These patterns were consistent across stimulus types, robust to noise, describable by a simple power law, and scalable between individuals and groups. Patterns included: (i) a preference trade-off counterbalancing approach and avoidance, (ii) a value function linking preference intensity to uncertainty about preference, and (iii) a saturation function linking preference intensity to its standard deviation, thereby setting limits to both.Conclusions/SignificanceThese law-like patterns were compatible with critical features of prospect theory, the matching law, and alliesthesia. Furthermore, they appeared consistent with both mean-variance and expected utility approaches to the assessment of risk. Ordering of responses across categories of stimuli demonstrated three properties thought to be relevant for preference-based choice, suggesting these patterns might be grouped together as a relative preference theory. Since variables in these patterns have been associated with reward circuitry structure and function, they may provide a method for quantitative phenotyping of normative and pathological function (e.g., psychiatric illness).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Recurrent, Robust and Scalable Patterns Underlie Human Approach and Avoidance

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, the plausibility of the "common currency hypothesis" of reward does not seem to be affected (Kringelbach andBerridge, 2010, Leknes andTracey, 2008, 318). In accordance with the methodological considerations presented above, we thus conclude that the assumption of multidimensional utility lacks "biological plausibility" (Clithero et al 2008). …”

Section: Neuroeconomic Insights On Utilitysupporting

confidence: 86%

Disentangling motivational and experiential aspects of “utility” – A neuroeconomics perspective

Witt¹,

Binder

2013

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractAlthough decision makers are often reported to have difficulties in making comparisons between multi-dimensional decision outcomes, economic theory assumes a uni-dimensional utility measure. This paper reviews evidence from behavioral and brain sciences to assess whether, and for what reasons, this assumption may be warranted. It is claimed that the decision makers' difficulties can be explained once the motivational aspects of utility ("wanting") are disentangled from the experiential ones ("liking") and the features of the different psychological processes involved are recognized.

show abstract

“…At root, the empirical data needed to establish whether discounting functions follow a hyperbolic, quasi-hyperbolic, or some other function will come from rigorous behavioral testing. What functional neuroimaging data can provide, however, is the ability to evaluate what classes of models are biologically plausible and, thus, are good candidates for future behavioral testing (see Clithero, Tankersley, & Huettel, 2008, for additional discussion). As an example, Delgado and colleagues have demonstrated that a neurobiologically based model can motivate the design of auctions in a study of overbidding behavior (Delgado, Schotter, Ozbay, & Phelps, 2008).…”

Section: Distinguishing Models and Their Constituent Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional neuroimaging of intertemporal choice models: A review.

Carter¹,

Meyer²,

Huettel³

2010

Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often forsake a larger reward later for a smaller reward sooner. The process of devaluing the larger, later prize is called temporal discounting or delay discounting, which lies at the core of intertemporal choice. Here, we describe the methodology and findings of research on the mechanisms of intertemporal choice, with a focus on those that utilize functional MRI (fMRI). We consider the neural bases for the most common economic models of intertemporal choice and examine whether these models require neural processes that are common or distinct across types of decision making. Considered as a whole, current research points to potentially distinct contributions from brain systems associated with valuation and with prospective thought, which may be reflected in separable foci in posterior cingulate cortex. Based on open questions in the field, we suggest two core goals for future research: identifying aspects of valuation that are unique to intertemporal choice and evaluating direct or indirect interactions between delay and prize magnitude.

show abstract

Foundations of Neuroeconomics: From Philosophy to Practice

Abstract: How can we use neuroscience to better understand economic behavior? By quelling concerns about the nascent field of neuroeconomics, the authors defend future integrations of the biological and social sciences.

Cited by 51 publications

References 96 publications

Recurrent, Robust and Scalable Patterns Underlie Human Approach and Avoidance

Recurrent, Robust and Scalable Patterns Underlie Human Approach and Avoidance

Disentangling motivational and experiential aspects of “utility” – A neuroeconomics perspective

Functional neuroimaging of intertemporal choice models: A review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About