Name: Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods (Video) | JoVE Journal
Uploaded: 2012-09-19T12:00:00.000+00:00
Duration: 13 min 4 s
Description: Learn to measure subjective value of risky and ambiguous options using functional MRI and experimental economics. This method reveals neural correlates in medial prefrontal cortex and striatum during decision-making.

ai_agent_IP

ai_agent

maintenance

instantTrialDurationMinutes

isBiopharma

enableNewMyJoveSectionDesign

educationFeatures

seoMetaApi

ai_copilot_institution_blacklist

ai_chat_institution_blacklist

freeAccessWindow

ssoRoleCapture

scheduledMaintenanceBanner

joveLabsFeatures

disable_autoplay_for_bots

extended_trial_duration

5 minutes

We thank Aldo Rustichini for fruitful discussions and comments on the design. Funded by NIA grant R01-AG033406 to IL and PWG.

<ol><li>Glimcher, P. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Understanding+risk%3A+a+guide+for+the+perplexed%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Cogn.+Affect+Behav.+Neurosci%22%5BJournal%5D)">Understanding risk: a guide for the perplexed.</a> Cogn. Affect Behav. Neurosci. 8, 348-354 (2008).</li>
<li>Camerer, C., Weber, M. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Recent+Developments+in+Modeling+Preferences+-+Uncertainty+and+Ambiguity%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Journal+of+Risk+and+Uncertainty%22%5BJournal%5D)">Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences - Uncertainty and Ambiguity.</a> Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5, 325-370 (1992).</li>
<li>Holt, C. A., Laury, S. K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Risk+aversion+and+incentive+effects%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Am.+Econ.+Rev%22%5BJournal%5D)">Risk aversion and incentive effects.</a> Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 1644-1655 (2002).</li>
<li>Levy, I., Snell, J., Nelson, A. J., Rustichini, A., Glimcher, P. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Neural+representation+of+subjective+value+under+risk+and+ambiguity%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22J.+Neurophysiol%22%5BJournal%5D)">Neural representation of subjective value under risk and ambiguity.</a> J. Neurophysiol. 103, 1036-1047 (2010).</li>
<li>Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Prospect+Theory+-+Analysis+of+Decision+under+Risk%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Econometrica%22%5BJournal%5D)">Prospect Theory - Analysis of Decision under Risk.</a> Econometrica. 47, 263-291 (1979).</li>
<li>Deichmann, R., Gottfried, J. A., Hutton, C., Turner, R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Optimized+EPI+for+fMRI+studies+of+the+orbitofrontal+cortex%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Neuroimage%22%5BJournal%5D)">Optimized EPI for fMRI studies of the orbitofrontal cortex.</a> Neuroimage. 19, 430-441 (2003).</li>
<li>Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Maxmin+Expected+Utility+with+Non-Unique+Prior%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22J.+Math+Econ%22%5BJournal%5D)">Maxmin Expected Utility with Non-Unique Prior.</a> J. Math Econ. 18, 141-153 (1989).</li>
<li>Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Camerer, C. F. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Neural+systems+responding+to+degrees+of+uncertainty+in+human+decision-making%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Science%22%5BJournal%5D)">Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making.</a> Science. 310, 1680-1683 (2005).</li>
<li>Boynton, G. A., Engel, S. A., Glover, G., Heeger, D. J Neurosci. 16, 4207-4221 (1996).</li>
<li>Forman, S. D. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Improved+Assessment+of+Significant+Activation+in+Functional+Magnetic-Resonance-Imaging+%28Fmri%29+-+Use+of+a+Cluster-Size+Threshold%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Magnetic+Resonance+in+Medicine%22%5BJournal%5D)">Improved Assessment of Significant Activation in Functional Magnetic-Resonance-Imaging (Fmri) - Use of a Cluster-Size Threshold.</a> Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 33, 636-647 (1995).</li>
<li>Genovese, C. R., Lazar, N. A., Nichols, T. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Thresholding+of+statistical+maps+in+functional+neuroimaging+using+the+false+discovery+rate%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22NeuroImage%22%5BJournal%5D)">Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate.</a> NeuroImage. 15, 870-878 (2002).</li>
<li>Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., Platt, M. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=((Neural+signatures+of+economic+preferences+for+risk+and+ambiguity%5BTitle%5D)+AND+%22Neuron%22%5BJournal%5D)">Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity.</a> Neuron. 49, 765-775 (2006).</li>
<li>Smith, V. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&q=author%3aSmith%2C+VL+%22Papers+in+experimental+economics%22">Papers in experimental economics</a>. , Cambridge University Press. (1991).</li>
</ol>

No conflicts of interest declared.

We have used a method from experimental economics to characterize subjects' behavior and estimate individual attitudes towards risk and ambiguity. We then used these estimates to analyze neural data.
Other methods for examining fMRI activity while subjects make choices under risk and ambiguity have been used before8,12. Our approach, however, combines several important features. First, it uses a parametric design, in which different parameters (amount, probability and ambiguity leve...

<table><tbody><tr><td>Allegra Head Only 3.0 T MRI Scanner</td><td>Siemens AG</td><td>A whole body scanner can also be used</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NM-011 transmit head coil</td><td>Nova Medical</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E-prime</td><td>Psychology Software Tools</td><td>Stimuli presentation software</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Matlab</td><td>Mathworks</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

measuring the subjective value of risky and ambiguous options using experimental economics and functional mri methods

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Most of the choices we make have uncertain consequences. In some cases the probabilities for different possible outcomes are precisely known, a condition termed "risky". In other cases when probabilities cannot be estimated, this is a condition described as "ambiguous". While most people are averse to both risk and ambiguity1,2, the degree of those aversions vary substantially across individuals, such that the subjective value of the same risky or ambiguous option can be very different for different individuals. We combine functional MRI (fMRI) with an experimental economics-based method3 to assess the neural representation of the subjective values of risky and ambiguous options4. This technique can be now used to study these neural representations in different populations, such as different age groups and different patient populations.
In our experiment, subjects make consequential choices between two alternatives while their neural activation is tracked using fMRI. On each trial subjects choose between lotteries that vary in their monetary amount and in either the probability of winning that amount or the ambiguity level associated with winning. Our parametric design allows us to use each individual's choice behavior to estimate their attitudes towards risk and ambiguity, and thus to estimate the subjective values that each option held for them. Another important feature of the design is that the outcome of the chosen lottery is not revealed during the experiment, so that no learning can take place, and thus the ambiguous options remain ambiguous and risk attitudes are stable. Instead, at the end of the scanning session one or few trials are randomly selected and played for real money. Since subjects do not know beforehand which trials will be selected, they must treat each and every trial as if it and it alone was the one trial on which they will be paid. This design ensures that we can estimate the true subjective value of each option to each subject. We then look for areas in the brain whose activation is correlated with the subjective value of risky options and for areas whose activation is correlated with the subjective value of ambiguous options.

Using functional MRI and behavioral methods to determine the neural representation of the subjective value of risky and ambiguous options in the human brain.

Most of the choices we make have uncertain consequences. In some cases the probabilities for different possible outcomes are precisely known, a condition ...

The overall goal of the following experiment is to examine the neural encoding of the subjective value of risky and ambiguous options using functional MRI. This is achieved by scanning participants while they make choices between risky and ambiguous lotteries, varying in amount, probability, and ambiguity level. The choices made by each participant are then used to estimate his or her attitudes towards risk and ambiguity, which in turn are used to estimate how risk and ambiguity affect participants valuation of the lotteries.Next, these estimates are used as regressors in a general linear model in order to identify brain areas in which activity is correlated with subjective value of risky and or ambiguous lotteries. The results show correlation with subjective values of both risky and ambiguous options in overlapping regions of the medial prefrontal cortex and the striatum. The main advantage of this technique over other methods that compare general activity for risky and ambiguous lotteries is that the individual behavior of each participant is used at the analysis of brain activation.This method can help answer key questions in the neuroeconomics field, such as how value is represented in the brain and how it's used to make choices. The first step in this protocol is to design the visual stimuli representing risky and ambiguous choices to be presented while scanning use images such as those seen here to represent envelopes filled with poker chips called lottery bags in stimuli for risky lotteries, the winning probability being the ratio of red to blue chips should be illustrated using both a graphic stimulus and numbers. Here, the red and blue areas of each image are proportional to the number of red and blue chips.In a real envelope, a minimum of three outcome probabilities is recommended for ambiguous lotteries. Part of the information about the probability should be missing such that the possible ratio of red to blue chips is bounded but not specified. Rendering the winning probability, partially ambiguous.Increasing the occluded size increases the ambiguity level. We recommend using at least three levels of occlusion present each winning probability or ambiguity level with outcome amount displayed next to the winning color and zero next to the other color. Here, drawing a red chip would result in winning 18 while drawing a blue chip would result in a zero outcome.Five.Reward levels are recommended spanning a wide range of amounts in each trial. The subject will choose between two lotteries. However, for simplicity, one of the options can be kept constant throughout the experiment and offscreen, while only the displayed option is varied.Each combination of probability or ambiguity level and amount should be presented at least four times to ensure sufficient statistical power. In analyses, set the paradigm as a slow event related design so that each lottery is presented as a stimulus for two seconds, followed by a delay period of six seconds to allow for neurovascular response. Then the response should be made within one to two seconds.Use a simple image as a brief feedback to indicate that the response has been recorded and separate the trials by rest periods of at least 10 seconds. Also, prepare physical bags or envelopes to match each lottery image used. In the experiment.Fill each envelope with a total of 100 red and blue chips with proportions corresponding to the probability of drawing a chip of each color from that bag shown in the display. These should be shown to subjects before the task as they will be used later to play randomly chosen trials for payoff. Paying subjects based on their choices in the experiment is important in order to encourage them to express their true preferences.Using physical bags with real chips in them to play the lotteries ensures to subject that the outcome probabilities are indeed the one stated prior to scanning. First, have the subject fill out a consent form as well as an MRI screening questionnaire. Then be sure that the subject removes all metal to ensure safety in the scanner environment.Next, provide the subject with detailed instructions about the experiment and the task. Make sure that the subject understands how probabilities and amounts are conveyed in each image, but do not reveal any information that could influence choices. A two button response box will be used in the scanner to record the subject's choices.Also, explain the payment mechanism so that the subject understands payment will be made. According to the choices. Seal the previously prepared bags and have the subject sign his or her name across the seal.Explain that this will enable verification at the end of the experiment that the contents of the bags were not altered as the subject will be allowed to look into the bags to make sure they confirm to the stated probability or ambiguity level. Using a three Tesla MRI scanner first acquire a high resolution image of the subject's brain using a T one weighted sequence. This structural volume will be used for 3D reconstruction.Any high resolution sequence can be used for this purpose. Next, use a T two star weighted EPI sequence to acquire functional imaging. During the task paradigm, make sure to position the slices to include the brain areas of interest.Typically, the prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, and the basal ganglia scanning parameters should be optimized for the specific scanner using a TR of two seconds and three by three by three millimeter voxels. After scanning, retrieve the behavioral data from the computer that has recorded the subject's button. Press responses.Then allow the subject to randomly select one or a few trials for payment. This can be done by having the subject draw a numbered poker chip out of an opaque bag that contains chips with all trial numbers. For each selected trial, show the subject, the presented option, and the choice they made on that trial.Then ask the subject to draw a chip from the bag chosen on that trial and pay them according to the drawn color and the amount presented on the trial. To analyze the behavioral data, use maximum likelihood to fit the choice data of each subject to a logistic function as seen. Here where PV is the probability that the subject chose the variable lottery.SV sub F and SV sub V are the subjective values of the fixed and variable options respectively and gamma is the slope of the logistic function, which is a subject specific parameter. An alternative approach is to use a probate distribution to model the subjective value of each option For each subject, use a model that takes into account the amount, probability, and ambiguity level of the option and the attitudes of the individual subject towards risk and ambiguity. We chose to use a power function that includes a linear effect of ambiguity on the perceived probability.One of several alternative approaches is to include ambiguity as an exponential effect, fitting the choice data with the choice function, thus provide estimates for the risk attitude, alpha and ambiguity attitude beta for each subject, initially perform standard pre-processing of the functional data, including slice, scan, time correction, motion correction, and removal of low frequencies related to physiological noise and scanner Drifts. Then coregister the functional data of each subject to the anatomical data For analysis at the single subject level, use a standard hemodynamic response function and model the activity of each voxel as a sustained response during the entire trial. Use a general linear model with two predictors of subjective value, one for risky trials and one for ambiguous trials.Use the individual subject specific parameters derived from the behavioral fit to calculate the subjective value of each lottery. Also include two dummy predictors, one for risky trials, and one for ambiguous trials. To capture general activations such as visual and motor, the test for significance should take into account the multiple comparisons performed here.The minimum cluster size was limited to six contiguous functional voxels. Other methods such as false discovery rate can also be used. Look for voxels in which the coefficients of subjective value under risk and or ambiguity are significant.Here we see behavioral results of three representative subjects. Each panel presents the choice data and model fit results for one subject under either risk or ambiguity. The graphs depict the proportion of trials in which the subject chose the variable lottery as a function of amount separately for each level of probability or ambiguity.As can be seen, subjects may vary a lot in their attitudes toward risk and ambiguity. Here we see imaging results for one, subject highlighted voxels are ones in which the coefficient of the subjective value predictor under ambiguity or risk was significantly different from zero. In this representative subject, significant correlation was found in medial prefrontal cortex and the striatum under both conditions.These areas are the most consistent across subjects, but significant correlations can also be expected in areas in medial and lateral parietal cortex as well as the amygdala. This technique allows researchers in the field of neuroeconomics to explore changes in risk and ambiguity attitudes, and their neural correlates in different populations under different contexts. After watching this video, you should have a good understanding of how to elicit risk and ambiguity attitudes, and how to use them to analyze FMRI Data obtained while participants were making choices.

measuring-subjective-value-risky-ambiguous-options-using-experimental

Research

JoVE Journal

Neuroscience

This presentation demonstrates the use of fMRI to study neural circuits that underlie decision-making. Simple perceptual tasks are combined with appetitive and aversive reinforcements to investigate how outcomes affect decision processes.

Functional Imaging with Reinforcement, Eyetracking, and Physiological Monitoring

The procedure described in this protocol shows that testosterone administration and folk beliefs about testosterone may be associated with directly opposed social behaviors.

Combining Behavioral Endocrinology and Experimental Economics: Testosterone and Social Decision Making

This article describes a set of methods for the measurement of food related motivation and food related goal values in humans.

Studying Food Reward and Motivation in Humans

This paper describes how to use the emotional oddball task and fMRI to measure brain activation in children and adolescents at familial high risk for schizophrenia (FHR). FMRI was used to measure differences in fronto-striato-limbic regions during an emotional oddball task. Children with FHR exhibited abnormal functional activation during adolescence.

Measurement of Fronto-limbic Activity Using an Emotional Oddball Task in Children with Familial High Risk for Schizophrenia

To date research has focused on cognitive strategies people adopt to cope with uncertainty. This research examines instead an experiential way of dealing with uncertainty and introduces a set of experimental methods showing how the experience of haptic softness can serve as a tool to deal with uncertainty.

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Delay discounting refers to a decline in the value of a reward when it is delayed relative to when it is immediately available. We outline a computer-based delay discounting task that is easy to implement and allows for the quantification of the degree of delay discounting in human participants.

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task

A cost-benefit analysis is a weighing-scale approach that the brain performs during the course of decision making. Here, we propose a protocol to train rats on an operant-based decision-making paradigm where rats choose higher rewards at the expense of waiting for 15 s to receive them.

Operant Protocols for Assessing the Cost-benefit Analysis During Reinforced Decision Making by Rodents

This protocol aims to investigate the neural activity related to social comparison and social distance during the processing of intertemporal decision outcomes. Indifference points will be measured using event-related potentials as part of the study.

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

This protocol presents a more precise and effective method of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the dorsolateral and dorsomedial prefrontal cortices during an experimental task using neuronavigation and robotic systems. Based on the results, crucial implications are suggested for future online stimulation research.

Online Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Dorsomedial and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Cognition Decision Making, and Cognitive Dissonance

Functional transcranial Doppler sonography (fTCD) is a simple and non-invasive ultrasound technique which can be used to assess the lateralization of cognitive functions, especially language, and is suitable for use with children.

Assessment of Cerebral Lateralization in Children using Functional Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound (fTCD)

Learn to measure subjective value of risky and ambiguous options using functional MRI and experimental economics. This method reveals neural correlates in medial prefrontal cortex and striatum during decision-making.

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Explore More Videos