Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Aversion-reward conflict (ARC) task. Participants are presented with a safe choice (blue) and a risky choice (orange). The safe choice pays a guaranteed small reward ($0.01) and no aversive stimulation. The risky choice pays a guaranteed larger reward ($0.05–$0.95), and a probability of stimulation as indicated by the centered white bar. Participants decide whether to accept a higher payout at risk of aversive stimulation. Figure Contributions: Darin Dougherty, Thilo Deckersbach, Alik Widge, and Samuel Zorowitz designed the task. Sam Zorowitz created the figure.
- Figure 2.
A Kruschke-style diagram of the hierarchical model. The ∼ symbol indicates stochastic dependency, whereas the = symbol indicates a deterministic dependency. Ellipses indicate the indices over which the dependency applies. The parameter of most interest is d, the inverse distance-to-decision-boundary, which measures the estimated conflict experienced on a given trial. Figure Contributions: Samuel Zorowitz created the model.
- Figure 3.
A priori cortical regions of interest. Regions (Freesurfer labels) were selected from the Mindboggle atlas (https://mindboggle.info/data.html) based on the diffuse locations of activations previously reported in the approach-avoidance decision-making literature. Figure Contributions: Samuel Zorowitz chose the regions of interest based on prior literature and created the figure.
- Figure 4.
Group-level behavior results. A, The estimated likelihood of choosing the risky option for each risk level and across rewards. The model estimated decreases in risky decision-making at both 50% risk (β1 = –1.922, 95% HDI: [–2.606, –1.139]) and 90% risk (β2 = –4.180, 95% HDI: [–5.273, –3.257]). In contrast, the model estimated increases in risky decision-making in response to increasing reward (β3 = 10.652, 95% HDI: [8.239, 12.887]). B, The estimated linear component of deliberation time as a function of decision conflict, d. The model estimated an increase in deliberation time with decision conflict (α1 = 0.456, 95% HDI: [0.388, 0.528]). Shaded regions denote the 95% HDI. Figure Contributions: Samuel Zorowitz, Katherine Link, and Alexander Rockhill performed the behavioral analysis.
- Figure 5.
Individual differences in behavior. Participants in the ARC task exhibited large individual differences in behavior. A, Participants varied in their approach-avoidance preferences (although the majority was approach biased). B, Participants varied in the extent to which their deliberation increased in response to decision conflict (but all participants showed increased response times during conflict). Each point represents one participant. The horizontal axis denotes the observed behavior (proportion of risky choices, A; response time increases, B), and the vertical axis denotes the model predicted behavior. Proximity to the diagonal indicates goodness of fit. Figure Contributions: Samuel Zorowitz, Katherine Link, and Alexander Rockhill performed the behavioral analysis.
- Figure 6.
PSC during deliberation. The control regressor measures changes in the BOLD signal during deliberation (independent of approach-avoidance conflict). Positive activation was found in cortical and subcortical regions including the lateral and medial PFC, striatum, and hippocampus. All voxels corrected for multiple comparisons through 5000-iteration permutation testing and voxel-wise FWE corrections (α = 0.05). LH, left hemisphere; RH, right hemisphere. Figure Contributions: Samuel Zorowitz and Alexander Rockhill performed the fMRI analysis. Samuel Zorowitz, Alexander Rockhill, and Kristen Kellard collected the data.
- Figure 7.
PSC during conflict. The parametric modulation regressor measures changes in BOLD signal during deliberation as a function of approach-avoidance conflict. Positive activation was detected only in bilateral IFG, and right dlPFC, and pre-SMA. All voxels corrected for multiple comparisons through 5000-iteration permutation testing and voxel-wise FWE corrections (α = 0.05). Figure Contributions: Samuel Zorowitz and Alexander Rockhill performed the fMRI analysis; Samuel Zorowitz, Alexander Rockhill and Kristen Kellard collected the data.
- Figure 8.
PSC during conflict for the fixed epochs analysis. In this case, epochs were made from the first stimulus presentation to the end of the response period instead of ending when the subject responded for each particular trial. A more widespread, less specific, smaller, positive activation was detected in the same structures as Figure 7 with the addition of activation in bilateral striatum, left insula as well as greater activation in bilateral dlPFC. All voxels corrected for multiple comparisons through 5000-iteration permutation testing and voxel-wise FWE corrections (α = 0.05). Figure Contributions: Alexander Rockhill performed the fMRI analysis. Samuel Zorowitz, Alexander Rockhill, and Kristen Kellard collected the data.
Tables
Deliberation phase (control) ROI x y z PSC F dACC/dmPFC: LH –12 22 36 0.08 352.92 RH 7 15 24 0.09 462.05 MCC: LH –7 –22 29 0.15 328.72 RH 7 –15 31 0.18 529.27 pre-SMA: LH –9 7 51 0.10 419.56 RH 10 14 47 0.10 373.34 dlPFC: LH –36 9 24 0.12 223.96 RH 36 18 25 0.11 312.87 Anterior insula: LH –31 27 9 0.2 351.91 RH 31 27 8 0.16 413.00 Lateral OFC: RH 13 38 –24 0.07 95.60 Pre-motor: LH –37 –2 43 0.14 291.16 RH 36 –3 44 0.14 333.73 Caudate: LH –10 7 3 0.07 28.42 RH 10 11 5 0.06 25.16 Putamen: LH –20 5 1 0.05 29.04 RH 34 –7 –7 0.04 22.15 Hippocampus: LH –14 –39 –3 0.09 34.95 RH 14 –39 –1 0.10 34.47 Deliberation phase (conflict) IFG: LH –39 45 7 0.05 56.53 RH 42 45 –6 0.05 55.10 dlPFC: RH 42 27 31 0.04 68.02 pre-SMA: RH 9 27 46 0.04 59.55 The reported statistics are the PSC and WLSs contrast against baseline (F) statistic. The first set of results reflect the unmodulated deliberation and the second set reflect the contrast between deliberation parametrically modulated by conflict and unmodulated deliberation. All coordinates reported in the MNI space and reflect the peak of activation. All voxel statistics were corrected for multiple comparisons through 5000-iteration permutation testing and voxel-wise FWE corrections (α = 0.05). LH, left hemisphere; RH, right hemisphere; MCC, midcingulate cortex.
In this issue
