4.8 Article

Endogenous fluctuations in the dopaminergic midbrain drive behavioral choice variability

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1900872116

关键词

behavioral variability; intrinsic brain fluctuations; dopaminergic midbrain; risky decision making; real-time fMRI

资金

  1. Singapore Institute of Management
  2. Wellcome Sir Henry Dale Fellowship [211155/Z/18/Z]
  3. Jacobs Foundation [2017-1261-04]
  4. Medical Research Foundation
  5. 2018 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation [27023]
  6. Wellcome Trust [098362/Z/12/Z, 203147/Z/16/Z]
  7. Medical Research Council Career Development Award [MR/N02401X/1]
  8. 2018 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, PS Fund [27674]
  9. UCL
  10. Max Planck Society
  11. MRC [MR/L012936/1, MR/N02401X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human behavior is surprisingly variable, even when facing the same problem under identical circumstances. A prominent example is risky decision making. Economic theories struggle to explain why humans are so inconsistent. Resting-state studies suggest that ongoing endogenous fluctuations in brain activity can influence low-level perceptual and motor processes, but it remains unknown whether endogenous fluctuations also influence high-level cognitive processes including decision making. Here, using real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging, we tested whether risky decision making is influenced by endogenous fluctuations in blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) activity in the dopaminergic midbrain, encompassing ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra. We show that low prestimulus brain activity leads to increased risky choice in humans. Using computational modeling, we show that increased risk taking is explained by enhanced phasic responses to offers in a decision network. Our findings demonstrate that endogenous brain activity provides a physiological basis for variability in complex human 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

4.8
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