Limits...
How the opinion of others affects our valuation of objects.

Campbell-Meiklejohn DK, Bach DR, Roepstorff A, Dolan RJ, Frith CD - Curr. Biol. (2010)

Bottom Line: It is known that the magnitude of activity in the ventral striatum reflects the value of reward-predicting stimuli.We show that social influence on the value of an object is associated with the magnitude of the ventral striatum response to receiving it.Influence at such a low level could contribute to rapid learning and the swift spread of values throughout a population.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London WC1N 3BG, UK. dan.cfin@gmail.com

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Task Displays, Timing, and DesignEach trial began by the subject indicating his or her preference for either a song that the subject provided or an unrecognized alternative (by moving his or her picture beneath the preference). Songs choices (one on left, one on right) appeared above pictures of reviewers and the subject (aligned in the center) in white font. Pictures were black and white. Subjects pressed the left button to move their picture left or the right button to move it right. A scrambled picture of the subject was placed on the opposite side. Next, subjects learned the reviewer opinions. The picture of each reviewer was moved under his or her respective preference. A scrambled picture of each reviewer was placed on the opposite side. Finally, the songs flashed between white and green font and one song was chosen for the subject's token, which appeared at the bottom of the screen in green font. Review outcomes were independent of object outcomes. Subjects knew that the ten songs with the most tokens at the end of the task would be purchased for them. A 2 s intertrial display (not shown) was a fixation cross.In the 2 × 3 design (top right), the independent variables were review outcome: RS (reviewers chose the subject's preferred song), RA (reviewers chose the alternative), and RSPLIT (split; one reviewer chose the subject's preferred song; the other chose the alternative); and object outcome: S (subject gained a token for his or her preferred song) and A (subject gained a token for the alternative song). These variables formed a 2 × 3 design matrix of six conditions: RSS, RSA, RAS, RAA, RSPLITS, and RSPLITA. The example shown corresponds to the RAS condition. See Supplemental Experimental Procedures for full task description.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2908235&req=5

fig1: Task Displays, Timing, and DesignEach trial began by the subject indicating his or her preference for either a song that the subject provided or an unrecognized alternative (by moving his or her picture beneath the preference). Songs choices (one on left, one on right) appeared above pictures of reviewers and the subject (aligned in the center) in white font. Pictures were black and white. Subjects pressed the left button to move their picture left or the right button to move it right. A scrambled picture of the subject was placed on the opposite side. Next, subjects learned the reviewer opinions. The picture of each reviewer was moved under his or her respective preference. A scrambled picture of each reviewer was placed on the opposite side. Finally, the songs flashed between white and green font and one song was chosen for the subject's token, which appeared at the bottom of the screen in green font. Review outcomes were independent of object outcomes. Subjects knew that the ten songs with the most tokens at the end of the task would be purchased for them. A 2 s intertrial display (not shown) was a fixation cross.In the 2 × 3 design (top right), the independent variables were review outcome: RS (reviewers chose the subject's preferred song), RA (reviewers chose the alternative), and RSPLIT (split; one reviewer chose the subject's preferred song; the other chose the alternative); and object outcome: S (subject gained a token for his or her preferred song) and A (subject gained a token for the alternative song). These variables formed a 2 × 3 design matrix of six conditions: RSS, RSA, RAS, RAA, RSPLITS, and RSPLITA. The example shown corresponds to the RAS condition. See Supplemental Experimental Procedures for full task description.

Mentions: One week prior to scanning, 28 healthy subjects (15 male, 13 female) submitted a list of 20 songs that could be purchased from an online music store and that they desired but did not yet own. On test day, each subject rated each song on a scale of 1 (“low”) to 10 (“high”) for desirability and read descriptions (and also viewed pictures) of two “expert” music reviewers before rating each reviewer from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) for how much they would trust that reviewer to pick a song that they (the subject) would like. Subjects then performed the task described in Figure 1 while being scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). After scanning, subjects rated the songs and reviewers again. The mean song desirability rating was 7.4 ± 0.07 before the experiment and 7.61 ± 1.6 after the experiment. The mean reviewer rating was 4.43 ± 0.91 on a scale from 1 (“very unlikely”) to 7 (“very likely”) that the reviewer would choose a song that the subject would like). The mean male reviewer's rating was 4.61 ± 1.1, and the mean female reviewer's rating was 4.27 ± 1.1. Thus subjects perceived both reviewers as capable of choosing music that the subject would like.


How the opinion of others affects our valuation of objects.

Campbell-Meiklejohn DK, Bach DR, Roepstorff A, Dolan RJ, Frith CD - Curr. Biol. (2010)

Task Displays, Timing, and DesignEach trial began by the subject indicating his or her preference for either a song that the subject provided or an unrecognized alternative (by moving his or her picture beneath the preference). Songs choices (one on left, one on right) appeared above pictures of reviewers and the subject (aligned in the center) in white font. Pictures were black and white. Subjects pressed the left button to move their picture left or the right button to move it right. A scrambled picture of the subject was placed on the opposite side. Next, subjects learned the reviewer opinions. The picture of each reviewer was moved under his or her respective preference. A scrambled picture of each reviewer was placed on the opposite side. Finally, the songs flashed between white and green font and one song was chosen for the subject's token, which appeared at the bottom of the screen in green font. Review outcomes were independent of object outcomes. Subjects knew that the ten songs with the most tokens at the end of the task would be purchased for them. A 2 s intertrial display (not shown) was a fixation cross.In the 2 × 3 design (top right), the independent variables were review outcome: RS (reviewers chose the subject's preferred song), RA (reviewers chose the alternative), and RSPLIT (split; one reviewer chose the subject's preferred song; the other chose the alternative); and object outcome: S (subject gained a token for his or her preferred song) and A (subject gained a token for the alternative song). These variables formed a 2 × 3 design matrix of six conditions: RSS, RSA, RAS, RAA, RSPLITS, and RSPLITA. The example shown corresponds to the RAS condition. See Supplemental Experimental Procedures for full task description.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2908235&req=5

fig1: Task Displays, Timing, and DesignEach trial began by the subject indicating his or her preference for either a song that the subject provided or an unrecognized alternative (by moving his or her picture beneath the preference). Songs choices (one on left, one on right) appeared above pictures of reviewers and the subject (aligned in the center) in white font. Pictures were black and white. Subjects pressed the left button to move their picture left or the right button to move it right. A scrambled picture of the subject was placed on the opposite side. Next, subjects learned the reviewer opinions. The picture of each reviewer was moved under his or her respective preference. A scrambled picture of each reviewer was placed on the opposite side. Finally, the songs flashed between white and green font and one song was chosen for the subject's token, which appeared at the bottom of the screen in green font. Review outcomes were independent of object outcomes. Subjects knew that the ten songs with the most tokens at the end of the task would be purchased for them. A 2 s intertrial display (not shown) was a fixation cross.In the 2 × 3 design (top right), the independent variables were review outcome: RS (reviewers chose the subject's preferred song), RA (reviewers chose the alternative), and RSPLIT (split; one reviewer chose the subject's preferred song; the other chose the alternative); and object outcome: S (subject gained a token for his or her preferred song) and A (subject gained a token for the alternative song). These variables formed a 2 × 3 design matrix of six conditions: RSS, RSA, RAS, RAA, RSPLITS, and RSPLITA. The example shown corresponds to the RAS condition. See Supplemental Experimental Procedures for full task description.
Mentions: One week prior to scanning, 28 healthy subjects (15 male, 13 female) submitted a list of 20 songs that could be purchased from an online music store and that they desired but did not yet own. On test day, each subject rated each song on a scale of 1 (“low”) to 10 (“high”) for desirability and read descriptions (and also viewed pictures) of two “expert” music reviewers before rating each reviewer from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) for how much they would trust that reviewer to pick a song that they (the subject) would like. Subjects then performed the task described in Figure 1 while being scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). After scanning, subjects rated the songs and reviewers again. The mean song desirability rating was 7.4 ± 0.07 before the experiment and 7.61 ± 1.6 after the experiment. The mean reviewer rating was 4.43 ± 0.91 on a scale from 1 (“very unlikely”) to 7 (“very likely”) that the reviewer would choose a song that the subject would like). The mean male reviewer's rating was 4.61 ± 1.1, and the mean female reviewer's rating was 4.27 ± 1.1. Thus subjects perceived both reviewers as capable of choosing music that the subject would like.

Bottom Line: It is known that the magnitude of activity in the ventral striatum reflects the value of reward-predicting stimuli.We show that social influence on the value of an object is associated with the magnitude of the ventral striatum response to receiving it.Influence at such a low level could contribute to rapid learning and the swift spread of values throughout a population.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London WC1N 3BG, UK. dan.cfin@gmail.com

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus