Deficits in decision making are at the heart of many psychiatric diseases, such as substance abuse disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Consequently, rodent models of decision making are germane to understanding the neural mechanisms underlying adaptive choice behavior and how such mechanisms can become compromised in pathological conditions. A critical factor that must be integrated with reward value to ensure optimal decision making is the occurrence of consequences, which can differ based on probability (risk of punishment) and temporal contiguity (delayed punishment). This article will focus on two models of decision making that involve explicit punishment, both of which recapitulate different aspects of consequences during human decision making. We will discuss each behavioral protocol, the parameters to consider when designing an experiment, and finally how such animal models can be utilized in studies of psychiatric disease. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
- Award ID(s):
- 1847794
- PAR ID:
- 10394341
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Management Science
- Volume:
- 68
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 0025-1909
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 3635 to 3659
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Abstract Basic Protocol 1 : Behavioral trainingSupport Protocol : Equipment testingAlternate Protocol : Reward discriminationBasic Protocol 2 : Risky decision‐making task (RDT)Basic Protocol 3 : Delayed punishment decision‐making task (DPDT) -
A person’s decisions vary even when options stay the same, like when a gambler changes bets despite constant odds of winning. Internal bias (e.g., emotion) contributes to this variability and is shaped by past outcomes, yet its neurobiology during decision-making is not well understood. To map neural circuits encoding bias, we administered a gambling task to 10 participants implanted with intracerebral depth electrodes in cortical and subcortical structures. We predicted the variability in betting behavior within and across patients by individual bias, which is estimated through a dynamical model of choice. Our analysis further revealed that high-frequency activity increased in the right hemisphere when participants were biased toward risky bets, while it increased in the left hemisphere when participants were biased away from risky bets. Our findings provide electrophysiological evidence that risk-taking bias is a lateralized push–pull neural system governing counterintuitive and highly variable decision-making in humans.
-
Predicting and understanding how people make decisions has been a long-standing goal in many fields, with quantitative models of human decision-making informing research in both the social sciences and engineering. We show how progress toward this goal can be accelerated by using large datasets to power machine-learning algorithms that are constrained to produce interpretable psychological theories. Conducting the largest experiment on risky choice to date and analyzing the results using gradient-based optimization of differentiable decision theories implemented through artificial neural networks, we were able to recapitulate historical discoveries, establish that there is room to improve on existing theories, and discover a new, more accurate model of human decision-making in a form that preserves the insights from centuries of research.
-
Choice context influences decision processes and is one of the primary determinants of what people choose. This insight has been used by academics and practitioners to study decision biases and to design behavioral interventions to influence and improve choices. We analyzed the effects of context-based behavioral interventions on the computational mechanisms underlying decision-making. We collected data from two large laboratory studies involving 19 prominent behavioral interventions, and we modeled the influence of each intervention using a leading computational model of choice in psychology and neuroscience. This allowed us to parametrize the biases induced by each intervention, to interpret these biases in terms of underlying decision mechanisms and their properties, to quantify similarities between interventions, and to predict how different interventions alter key choice outcomes. In doing so, we offer researchers and practitioners a theoretically principled approach to understanding and manipulating choice context in decision-making.more » « less
-
Abstract The goal of this article is to introduce readers to theories, tools, and evidence from the field of neuroeconomics and to describe how health psychology and neuroeconomics can be mutually informative in the study of preventative health behaviors. Preventative health behavior here refers to both individual actions that impact one's health (e.g., exercise) and broader behavioral patterns, such as those captured in personality constructs. Although neuroeconomic researchers have begun to incorporate health‐relevant behaviors into their studies, the full potential of this research to inform preventative health models is as yet unrealized. What is needed to “translate up” is the unification of rich theoretical content from health psychology with investigations by neuroeconomic researchers of the decision‐making process during health‐relevant choices. We identify choice as a central, shared feature across models of preventative health behavior that can serve as an inroad for neuroeconomics to contribute to existing models and highlight commonalities that might not otherwise be apparent. A central premise of our argument is that, because health decisions are nearly always multiply determined, a more precise and mechanistic understanding of how choices are made is an important but understudied topic in health psychology. A partnership between health psychologists and neuroeconomic researchers can yield valuable insights into how preventative health choice is made and to identify targets and methods for intervention.