4.7 Article

Economic Games Quantify Diminished Sense of Guilt in Patients with Damage to the Prefrontal Cortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 2188-2192

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5086-08.2009

关键词

prefrontal; lesion; social preference; guilt; neuroeconomics; ventromedial

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
  2. National Institute of Mental Health
  3. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  4. National Science Foundation
  5. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) impairs concern for other people, as reflected in the dysfunctional real-life social behavior of patients with such damage, as well as their abnormal performances on tasks ranging from moral judgment to economic games. Despite these convergent data, we lack a formal model of how, and to what degree, VMPFC lesions affect an individual's social decision-making. Here we provide a quantification of these effects using a formal economic model of choice that incorporates terms for the disutility of unequal payoffs, with parameters that index behaviors normally evoked by guilt and envy. Six patients with focal VMPFC lesions participated in a battery of economic games that measured concern about payoffs to themselves and to others: dictator, ultimatum, and trust games. We analyzed each task individually, but also derived estimates of the guilt and envy parameters from aggregate behavior across all of the tasks. Compared with control subjects, the patients donated significantly less and were less trustworthy, and overall our model found a significant insensitivity to guilt. Despite these abnormalities, the patients had normal expectations about what other people would do, and they also did not simply generate behavior that was more noisy. Instead, the findings argue for a specific insensitivity to guilt, an abnormality that we suggest characterizes a key contribution made by the VMPFC to social behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据