Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Computational Substrates of Social Value in Interpersonal Collaboration

Dominic S. Fareri, Luke J. Chang and Mauricio R. Delgado
Journal of Neuroscience 27 May 2015, 35 (21) 8170-8180; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4775-14.2015
Dominic S. Fareri
1Gordon F. Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luke J. Chang
2Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mauricio R. Delgado
3Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07102
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Task schematic, manipulation check, and trust decisions. a, MRI participants played a trust game with three different partners: a close friend (in-network), a confederate (out-of-network), and a computer (nonsocial control). Participants were endowed with $1.00 on each trial and chose whether to keep the money for themselves, leaving the partner with $0, or to share/invest with that partner. Decisions to share resulted in the partner receiving a tripled amount of money ($3.00). After submitting their decision, a screen that said “waiting” appeared, during which participants believed that they were waiting for their partner's decision. Partners' decisions to share resulted in an even split of the $3.00 investment, whereas decisions to keep resulted in $0 being returned to the participant. b, Participants (n = 26) assessed each partner's trustworthiness before (pre) and after (post) the task “How trustworthy is this partner?” c, Percentage of trials in which participants shared on average across the experiment conditional on the partner context. Participants shared significantly more with their close friends compared with the confederate and computer and more often with the confederate than the computer. **p < 0.0001; *p < 0.005 (±SEM).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Computational model results. a, Model simulations of the likelihood of sharing with a partner on a given trial for one randomly selected participant's experimental data. We compared the ability of the social value model (bottom) to explain collaborative behavior with a standard expected value model (top), which assumes that participants maximize expected value based solely on self-interested financial value and a 50% reinforcement rate, and an expectation-learning model incorporating strong priors, in which participants update their beliefs about partner reciprocation from both positive and negative outcomes (middle). b, Average model fits penalizing for the number of free parameters using the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC). The social value model provided the best fit to participant behavior (n = 26). c, Average social value bonus (theta * normalized trustworthiness ratings) for each partner. ***p < 0.0001; **p < 0.001; *p < 0.05 (±SEM).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Neural representations of social value. a, A whole-brain balanced contrast of friend reciprocate > all other outcomes revealed significant clusters of activation within putative reward circuitry, including ventral striatum, bilaterally (left: x, y, z = −19, 7, −6; right: x, y, z = 11, 16, 3) and medial prefrontal cortex (BA9/10: x, y, z = −1, 55, 15). Results are depicted at p < 0.001, whole-brain cluster corrected to p < 0.05 (n = 26). b, c, Plot of extracted mean parameter estimates depicting the average mPFC (x, y, z = −1, 55, 15; b) and ventral striatal (left: x, y, z = −19, 7, −6; right: x, y, z = 11, 16, 3; c) response identified via the contrast of friend reciprocate > all other outcomes (±SEM). d, e, Scatterplots depicting the relationship between model-derived bonus values (theta * normalized trustworthiness ratings) and average mPFC (d) and ventral striatal (e) activity. Participants' means of the bonus parameter have been removed to be consistent with the mixed-effects regression analysis.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Neural correlates of prediction error. A whole-brain analysis using model-derived prediction error values from the social value model showed enhanced prediction-error-related activation in the bilateral striatum, including left ventral striatum (x, y, z = −10, 1, −9) and right caudate nucleus extending to the ventral striatum (x, y, z = 14, 16, 3) and posterior cingulate (x, y, z = −1, −35, 30), among other regions. Results are depicted at p < 0.001 whole-brain cluster corrected to p < 0.05.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Model parameters

    Modelα (SE)α gain (SE)α loss (SE)ß (SE)Θ (SE)Φ (SE)AIC (SE)ρR2 (SE)Recov. (SE)
    Expected valueNANANA0.98 (02)NANA106.34 (1.18)***0.23 (0.02)0.04 (0.03)
    Expectation0.02 (0.01)NANA0.35 (0.04)NA1.85 (0.15)80.07 (4.18)*0.42 (0.03)0.89 (0.01)
    Social value0.21 (0.04)NANA0.59 (0.08)2.64 (0.29)NA77.73 (3.80)0.44 (0.03)0.70 (0.01)
    LG-RLNA0.79 (0.04)0.10 (0.01)0.37 (0.05)NANA80.50 (3.61)**0.42 (0.03)0.75 (0.01)
    LG-RL partnersNAF: 0.89 (0.04)F: 0.08 (0.02)0.31 (0.16)NANA84.71 (3.75)**0.39 (0.03)NA
    C: 0.79 (0.05)††C: 0.09 (0.02)
    CP: 0.61 (0.07)*CP: 0.16 (0.03)†
    Partner recip0.23 (0.04)NANA0.63 (0.08)F: 2.36 (0.33)NA78.13 (4.08)0.44 (0.03)0.48 (0.01)
    C: 1.94 (0.27)*
    CP: 1.25 (0.19)**
    • LG-RL Partners: F, Friend; C, Confederate; CP, Computer. Comparison Condition for LG-RL Partners: Friend.

    • ↵†p < 0.10,

    • ↵††p = 0.05,

    • ↵*p < 0.05,

    • ↵**p < 0.001,

    • ↵***p < 0.0001; Comparison Model: Social Value.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Friend reciprocate > all other conditions (balanced)

    Region of activation (peak)Brodmann areaLateralityTalairach coordinates (peak)t-stat# Voxels (mm3)
    xyz
    Fusiform gyrusBA19R23−56−98.3951654
    Caudate nucleusR111635.21460
    Medial frontal gyrusBA9/10L−155155.744345
    Ventral striatumL−197−66.03871
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Friend defect > all other outcomes (balanced)

    Region of activation (peak)Brodmann areaLateralityTalairach coordinates (peak)t-stat# Voxels (mm3)
    xyz
    Postcentral gyrusBA43R65−1718−6.121718
    Superior frontal gyrusBA10R384918−4.97670
    CuneusBA18R5−929−5.967209
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Regions tracking prediction error

    Region of activation (peak)Brodmann areaLateralityTalairach coordinates (peak)t-statistic# Voxels (mm3)
    xyz
    PrecuneusBA19R29−62395.292066
    CuneusBA18/17L−4−861210.1367230
    Caudate nucleusR141636.041477
    Cingulate gyrusBA31L−1−35304.98782
    Ventral striatumL−101−95.35546
    Middle occipital gyrusBA37L−46−68−66.031011
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 35 (21)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 35, Issue 21
27 May 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Computational Substrates of Social Value in Interpersonal Collaboration
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Computational Substrates of Social Value in Interpersonal Collaboration
Dominic S. Fareri, Luke J. Chang, Mauricio R. Delgado
Journal of Neuroscience 27 May 2015, 35 (21) 8170-8180; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4775-14.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Computational Substrates of Social Value in Interpersonal Collaboration
Dominic S. Fareri, Luke J. Chang, Mauricio R. Delgado
Journal of Neuroscience 27 May 2015, 35 (21) 8170-8180; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4775-14.2015
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • collaboration
  • medial prefrontal cortex
  • social network
  • social value
  • trust
  • ventral striatum

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Sensorimotor Cortex GABA Moderates the Relationship between Physical Exertion and Assessments of Effort
  • Ras Inhibitor Lonafarnib Rescues Structural and Functional Impairments of Synapses of Aβ1-42 Mice via α7nAChR-Dependent BDNF Upregulation
  • Differential auditory and visual phase-locking are observed during audio-visual benefit and silent lip-reading for speech perception
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.