4.7 Article

Test-retest reliability of brain responses to risk-taking during the balloon analogue risk task

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 209, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116495

Keywords

Test-retest reliability; Balloon analogue risk task (BART); fMRI; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R21 DA032022, R01 MH107571, R21 AG051981, R01 HL102119]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71942003, 71671115]
  3. Shanghai International Studies University Major Research Project [20171140020]
  4. Program for Professors of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning [TP2016020, GZ2019003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) provides a reliable and ecologically valid model for the assessment of individual risk-taking propensity and is frequently used in neuroimaging and developmental research. Although the test-retest reliability of risk-taking behavior during the BART is well established, the reliability of brain activation patterns in response to risk-taking during the BART remains elusive. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and evaluated the test-retest reliability of brain responses in 34 healthy adults during a modified BART by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Dice's similarity coefficients (DSC). Analyses revealed that risk-induced brain activation patterns showed good test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.62) and moderate to high spatial consistency, while brain activation patterns associated with win or loss outcomes only had poor to fair reliability (median ICC = 0.33 for win and 0.42 for loss). These findings have important implications for future utility of the BART in fMRI to examine brain responses to risk-taking and decision-making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available