Back

Systematic comparison of risky choices in humans and monkeys

Seak, L. C. U.; Ferrari-Toniolo, S.; Jain, R.; Nielsen, K.; Schultz, W.

2023-02-08 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.02.07.527517 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The past decades have seen tremendous progress in fundamental studies on economic choice in humans. However, elucidation of the underlying neuronal processes requires invasive neurophysiological studies that are met with difficulties in humans. Monkeys as evolutionary closest relatives offer a solution. The animals display sophisticated and well-controllable behavior that allows to implement key constructs of proven economic choice theories. However, the similarity of economic choice between the two species has never been systematically investigated. We investigated compliance with the independence axiom (IA) of expected utility theory as one of the most demanding choice tests and compared IA violations between humans and monkeys. Using generalized linear modeling and cumulative prospect theory (CPT), we found that humans and monkeys made comparable risky choices, although their subjective values (utilities) differed. These results suggest similar fundamental choice mechanism across these primate species and encourage to study their underlying neurophysiological mechanisms.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 6%
12.9%
Similar papers in this journal
2
The Journal of Neuroscience
● 1025 papers in training set
Top 1%
12.8%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
9.7%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Frontiers in Neuroscience
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 7%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
eneuro
● 439 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Cognition
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
8
Behavioral Neuroscience
● 25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
9
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 8%
3.2%
10
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
11
Journal of Neurophysiology
● 302 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
12
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
13
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
14
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.1%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 26%
1.9%
16
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
● 23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
17
Cortex
○ 119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
19
Nature Human Behaviour
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
European Journal of Neuroscience
○ 189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Psychological Review
● 19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
Neuroscience
○ 97 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.1%
24
Learning & Memory
● 23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
25
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
● 135 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.