Van Duijvenvoorde Anna C K, Figner Bernd, Weeda Wouter D, Van der Molen Maurits W, Jansen Brenda R J, Huizenga Hilde M
University of Amsterdam.
Leiden University.
J Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Sep;28(9):1358-73. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00975. Epub 2016 May 11.
Individuals may differ systematically in their applied decision strategies, which has critical implications for decision neuroscience but is yet scarcely studied. Our study's main focus was therefore to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying compensatory versus noncompensatory strategies in risky choice. Here, we compared people using a compensatory expected value maximization with people using a simplified noncompensatory loss-minimizing choice strategy. To this end, we used a two-choice paradigm including a set of "simple" items (e.g., simple condition), in which one option was superior on all attributes, and a set of "conflict" items, in which one option was superior on one attribute but inferior on other attributes. A binomial mixture analysis of the decisions elicited by these items differentiated between decision-makers using either a compensatory or a noncompensatory strategy. Behavioral differences were particularly pronounced in the conflict condition, and these were paralleled by neural results. That is, we expected compensatory decision-makers to use an integrated value comparison during choice in the conflict condition. Accordingly, the compensatory group tracked the difference in expected value between choice options reflected in neural activation in the parietal cortex. Furthermore, we expected noncompensatory, compared with compensatory, decision-makers to experience increased conflict when attributes provided conflicting information. Accordingly, the noncompensatory group showed greater dorsomedial PFC activation only in the conflict condition. These pronounced behavioral and neural differences indicate the need for decision neuroscience to account for individual differences in risky choice strategies and to broaden its scope to noncompensatory risky choice strategies.
个体在应用的决策策略上可能存在系统性差异，这对决策神经科学具有关键意义，但目前却鲜有研究。因此，我们研究的主要重点是探究风险选择中补偿性策略与非补偿性策略背后的神经机制。在此，我们将采用补偿性预期价值最大化的人与采用简化的非补偿性损失最小化选择策略的人进行了比较。为此，我们使用了一种二选一范式，包括一组“简单”项目（如简单条件），其中一个选项在所有属性上都更优，以及一组“冲突”项目，其中一个选项在一个属性上更优但在其他属性上更差。对这些项目引发的决策进行二项混合分析，区分了使用补偿性或非补偿性策略的决策者。行为差异在冲突条件下尤为明显，并且这些差异与神经学结果相对应。也就是说，我们预计补偿性决策者在冲突条件下进行选择时会使用综合价值比较。相应地，补偿性组追踪了顶叶皮层神经激活所反映的选择选项之间预期价值的差异。此外，我们预计与补偿性决策者相比，非补偿性决策者在属性提供冲突信息时会经历更大的冲突。相应地，非补偿性组仅在冲突条件下表现出更大的背内侧前额叶皮层激活。这些明显的行为和神经差异表明，决策神经科学需要考虑风险选择策略中的个体差异，并将其范围扩大到非补偿性风险选择策略。
