Results: main effectsTo test whether feedback type modulated activation in regions

Results: main effectsTo test whether feedback type modulated purchase Chaetocin activation in regions associated with reward processing during risk taking, we examined individual differences in activation of NAc (based on Haber and Knutson, 2010) and mPFC (based on Op de Macks et al., in press). Results of the ROI analyses showed that, across participants, there was no main effect of feedback type on either NAc or mPFC activation (Supplementary Figure S1). To examine whether other brain regions showed a main effect of feedback type, we conducted order Tyrphostin AG 490 whole-brain analyses for brain activation during risk taking and reward processing separately. Risk taking-related brain activation. Results of the whole-brain analysis across participants (n ?58) for the contrast of Social > Monetary Play revealed clusters of activation in bilateral anterior insula (AI), with the left peak at: x ??8, y ?17, z ?? (cluster-level FWE corrected P ?0.004), and the right peak at: x ?46, y ?22, z ?? (cluster-level FWE corrected P ?0.002) (Figure 4A). These results indicate that bilateral AI was more active during trials on which participants chose to play in the social rank feedback context compared to trials on which participants chose to play in the monetary feedback context. Further examination of the patterns of brain activation in bilateral AI showed that activation in this region was increased forPlay choices–regardless of whether they resulted in Gain or Loss–compared with Pass choices in the social rank feedback context [Gain > Pass: t(57) ?2.9, P ?0.005; Loss > Pass: t(57) ?2.5, P ?0.015], but not in the monetary feedback context (Gain > Pass: t(56) ?0.22, P ?0.83; Loss > Pass: t(56) ?0.78, p ?0.44) (Figure 5A). These findings indicate that bilateral AI distinguished between risky and safe choices when playing for rank, but not when playing for money. Additional clusters of activation were found in left fusiform (peak at: x ??0, y ??2, z ??4, cluster-level FWE corrected P < 0.001) and lingual gyrus (peak at: x ??2, y ??5, z ??, cluster-level FWE corrected P ?0.003). No regions of activation survived correction for multiple comparisons (at either peak- or cluster-level) for the opposite contrast of Monetary > Social Play, nor for the contrasts of Social > Monetary Pass and Monetary > Social Pass. Reward-related brain activation. Results of the whole-brain analysis across participants for the contrast of Social > Monetary Gain revealed clusters of activation in left fusiform gyrus (peak at: x ??2, y ??9, z ??1, cluster-level FWE corrected P < .001), and in right AI (peak at: x ?36, y ?16, z ?-6, cluster-level FWE corrected P < 0.001) (Figure 4B). No regions of activation survived correction for multiple comparisons (at either peak- or cluster-level) for the opposite contrast of Monetary > Social Gain, nor for the contrasts of Social > Monetary Loss and Monetary > Social Loss. However, at a lowered threshold of P < 0.001 uncorrected with k ! 10 voxels, we found a cluster of activation in left AI (peak at: x ??8, y ?17, z ??) for Social > Monetary Loss (Figure 4C). These results indicate that AI (and fusiform gyrus) was more strongly activated when playing for rank resulted in gains than when playing for money resulted in gains. See Supplementary Figure S2 for the BOLD time-courses of the left and right AI, plotted separately for gain, loss, and pass trials in both the social rank and monetary feedback conditions.Individual differences in AI activationTo test whether pubertal ho.Results: main effectsTo test whether feedback type modulated activation in regions associated with reward processing during risk taking, we examined individual differences in activation of NAc (based on Haber and Knutson, 2010) and mPFC (based on Op de Macks et al., in press). Results of the ROI analyses showed that, across participants, there was no main effect of feedback type on either NAc or mPFC activation (Supplementary Figure S1). To examine whether other brain regions showed a main effect of feedback type, we conducted whole-brain analyses for brain activation during risk taking and reward processing separately. Risk taking-related brain activation. Results of the whole-brain analysis across participants (n ?58) for the contrast of Social > Monetary Play revealed clusters of activation in bilateral anterior insula (AI), with the left peak at: x ??8, y ?17, z ?? (cluster-level FWE corrected P ?0.004), and the right peak at: x ?46, y ?22, z ?? (cluster-level FWE corrected P ?0.002) (Figure 4A). These results indicate that bilateral AI was more active during trials on which participants chose to play in the social rank feedback context compared to trials on which participants chose to play in the monetary feedback context. Further examination of the patterns of brain activation in bilateral AI showed that activation in this region was increased forPlay choices–regardless of whether they resulted in Gain or Loss–compared with Pass choices in the social rank feedback context [Gain > Pass: t(57) ?2.9, P ?0.005; Loss > Pass: t(57) ?2.5, P ?0.015], but not in the monetary feedback context (Gain > Pass: t(56) ?0.22, P ?0.83; Loss > Pass: t(56) ?0.78, p ?0.44) (Figure 5A). These findings indicate that bilateral AI distinguished between risky and safe choices when playing for rank, but not when playing for money. Additional clusters of activation were found in left fusiform (peak at: x ??0, y ??2, z ??4, cluster-level FWE corrected P < 0.001) and lingual gyrus (peak at: x ??2, y ??5, z ??, cluster-level FWE corrected P ?0.003). No regions of activation survived correction for multiple comparisons (at either peak- or cluster-level) for the opposite contrast of Monetary > Social Play, nor for the contrasts of Social > Monetary Pass and Monetary > Social Pass. Reward-related brain activation. Results of the whole-brain analysis across participants for the contrast of Social > Monetary Gain revealed clusters of activation in left fusiform gyrus (peak at: x ??2, y ??9, z ??1, cluster-level FWE corrected P < .001), and in right AI (peak at: x ?36, y ?16, z ?-6, cluster-level FWE corrected P < 0.001) (Figure 4B). No regions of activation survived correction for multiple comparisons (at either peak- or cluster-level) for the opposite contrast of Monetary > Social Gain, nor for the contrasts of Social > Monetary Loss and Monetary > Social Loss. However, at a lowered threshold of P < 0.001 uncorrected with k ! 10 voxels, we found a cluster of activation in left AI (peak at: x ??8, y ?17, z ??) for Social > Monetary Loss (Figure 4C). These results indicate that AI (and fusiform gyrus) was more strongly activated when playing for rank resulted in gains than when playing for money resulted in gains. See Supplementary Figure S2 for the BOLD time-courses of the left and right AI, plotted separately for gain, loss, and pass trials in both the social rank and monetary feedback conditions.Individual differences in AI activationTo test whether pubertal ho.

Leave a Reply