Distinct neural dynamics underlying risk and ambiguity during valued-based decision making

Distinct neural dynamics of the observed ostracism effect in decision-making under risk and ambiguity

Observational ostracism, as a form of social exclusion, can significantly affect human behavior. However, the effects of observed ostracism on risky and ambiguous decision-making and the underlying neural mechanisms remain unclear. This event-related potential study investigated these issues by involving participants in a wheel-of- fortune task, considering observed ostracism and inclusion contexts. The results showed that the cue-P3 component was more enhanced during the choice phase for risky decisions than for ambiguous decisions in the observed inclusion contexts but not in the observed ostracism contexts. During the outcome evaluation phase, feedback-related negativity amplitudes following both risky and ambiguous decisions were higher in the no-gain condition than in the gain condition in the observed inclusion context. In contrast, this effect was only observed following risky decisions in the observed ostracism context. The feedback-P3 component did not exhibit an observed ostracism effect in risky and ambiguous decision-making tasks. Risk levels further modulated the cue-P3 and feedback-related negativity components, while ambiguity levels further modulated the feedback-P3 components. These findings demonstrate a neural dissociation between risk and ambiguity decision-making during observed ostracism that unfolds from the choice phase to the outcome evaluation phase.

Effort Expenditure Increases Risk-Taking for Improbable Rewards

Previous studies have found that exerting effort can lead people to engage in risk-taking behaviors. While effort can be either cognitive or physical, risk-taking can take place in either a risky context with known outcome probabilities or an ambiguous context with unknown outcome probabilities. The goal of the current research is to investigate how effort type and decision context influence risk-taking after effort exertion. Across three experiments, we find evidence that investing effort increases risk-taking at a short timescale. Importantly, this effect is particularly noticeable when the chance of winning is low, rather than when it is uncertain. Furthermore, the increase in risk-taking happens regardless of whether the effort is cognitive or physical. These findings suggest the existence of a cost-invariant but decision context-variant mechanism for the risk-taking after-effect of effort expenditure, which helps to bring the negative emotions caused by effort exertion back to a state of emotional homeostasis.

Neural Differences in Relation to Risk Preferences during Reward Processing: An Event-Related Potential Study

Inter-individual variability in risk preferences can be reflected in reward processing differences, making people risk-seekers or risk-averse. However, the neural correlates of reward processing in individuals with risk preferences remain unknown. Consequently, this event-related potential (ERP) study examined and compared electrophysiological correlates associated with different stages of reward processing in risk-seeking and risk-averse groups. Individuals scoring in the bottom and top 20% on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) were deemed risk-averse and risk-seeking, respectively. Participants engaged in a gambling task while their electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. Risk-seekers tended to choose high-risk options significantly more frequently than low-risk options, whereas risk-averse individuals chose low-risk options significantly more frequently than high-risk ones. All participants selected the low-risk alternative more slowly than the high-risk option. During the anticipation stage, the low-risk option elicited a relatively attenuated stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) response from risk-seekers compared to risk-averse participants. During the outcome stage, feedback-related negativity (FRN) increased in risk-seekers responding to greater losses but not in risk-averse participants. These results indicate that ERP components can detect differences in reward processing during risky situations. In addition, these results suggest that motivation and cognitive control, along with their associated neural processes, may play a central role in differences in reward-based behavior between the two groups.

Uncertainty deconstructed: conceptual analysis and state-of-the-art review of the ERP correlates of risk and ambiguity in decision-making

Risk and uncertainty are central concepts of decision neuroscience. However, a comprehensive review of the literature shows that most studies define risk and uncertainty in an unclear fashion or use both terms interchangeably, which hinders the integration of the existing findings. We suggest uncertainty as an umbrella term that comprises scenarios characterized by outcome variance where relevant information about the type and likelihood of outcomes may be somewhat unavailable (ambiguity) and scenarios where the likelihood of outcomes is known (risk).These conceptual issues are problematic for studies on the temporal neurodynamics of decision-making under risk and ambiguity, because they lead to heterogeneity in task design and the interpretation of the results. To assess this problem, we conducted a state-of-the-art review of ERP studies on risk and ambiguity in decision-making. By employing the above definitions to 16 reviewed studies, our results suggest that: (a) research has focused more on risk than ambiguity processing; (b) studies assessing decision-making under risk often implemented descriptive-based paradigms, whereas studies assessing ambiguity processing equally implemented descriptive- and experience-based tasks; (c) descriptive-based studies link risk processing to increased frontal negativities (e.g., N2, N400) and both risk and ambiguity to reduced parietal positivities (e.g., P2, P3); (d) experience-based studies link risk to increased P3 amplitudes and ambiguity to increased frontal negativities and the LPC component; (e) both risk and ambiguity processing seem to be related with cognitive control, conflict monitoring, and increased cognitive demand; (f) further research and improved tasks are needed to dissociate risk and ambiguity processing.