Danielle C Farrar1, Asim Z Mian2, Andrew E Budson3, Mark B Moss4, Ronald J Killiany4. 1. Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, 650 Albany St, Basement, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. dfarrar@bu.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, 650 Albany St, Basement, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe imaging markers of decision-making under uncertain conditions in normal individuals, in order to provide baseline activity to compare to impaired decision-making in pathological states. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 19 healthy subjects ages 18-35 completed a novel decision-making card-matching task using a Phillips T3 Scanner and a 32-channel head coil. Functional data were collected in six functional runs. In one condition of the task, the participant was certain of the rule to apply to match the cards; in the other condition, the participant was uncertain. We performed cluster-based comparison of the two conditions using FSL fMRI Expert Analysis Tool and network-based analysis using MATLAB. RESULTS: The uncertain > certain comparison yielded three clusters-a midline cluster that extended through the midbrain, the thalamus, bilateral prefrontal cortex, the striatum, and bilateral parietal/occipital clusters. The certain > uncertain comparison yielded bilateral clusters in the insula, parietal and temporal lobe, as well as a medial frontal cluster. A larger, more connected functional network was found in the uncertain condition. CONCLUSION: The involvement of the insula, parietal cortex, temporal cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and orbitofrontal cortex of the certain condition reinforces the notion that certainty is inherently rewarding. For the uncertain condition, the involvement of the prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, striatum, thalamus, amygdala, and hippocampal involvement was expected, as these are areas involved in resolving uncertainty and rule updating. The involvement of occipital cortical involvement and midbrain involvement may be attributed to increased visual attention and increased motor control.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe imaging markers of decision-making under uncertain conditions in normal individuals, in order to provide baseline activity to compare to impaired decision-making in pathological states. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 19 healthy subjects ages 18-35 completed a novel decision-making card-matching task using a Phillips T3 Scanner and a 32-channel head coil. Functional data were collected in six functional runs. In one condition of the task, the participant was certain of the rule to apply to match the cards; in the other condition, the participant was uncertain. We performed cluster-based comparison of the two conditions using FSL fMRI Expert Analysis Tool and network-based analysis using MATLAB. RESULTS: The uncertain > certain comparison yielded three clusters-a midline cluster that extended through the midbrain, the thalamus, bilateral prefrontal cortex, the striatum, and bilateral parietal/occipital clusters. The certain > uncertain comparison yielded bilateral clusters in the insula, parietal and temporal lobe, as well as a medial frontal cluster. A larger, more connected functional network was found in the uncertain condition. CONCLUSION: The involvement of the insula, parietal cortex, temporal cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and orbitofrontal cortex of the certain condition reinforces the notion that certainty is inherently rewarding. For the uncertain condition, the involvement of the prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, striatum, thalamus, amygdala, and hippocampal involvement was expected, as these are areas involved in resolving uncertainty and rule updating. The involvement of occipital cortical involvement and midbrain involvement may be attributed to increased visual attention and increased motor control.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Gary G Berntson; Antoine Bechara; Hanna Damasio; Daniel Tranel; John T Cacioppo Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Charalampos Styliadis; Andreas A Ioannides; Panagiotis D Bamidis; Christos Papadelis Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2013-05-18 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Wujie Zhang; David M Schneider; Marina A Belova; Sara E Morrison; Joseph J Paton; C Daniel Salzman Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Alifiya Kapasi; Lei Yu; Christopher Stewart; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett; Patricia A Boyle Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.160