Salience-driven value construction for adaptive choice under risk

Abstract

Decisions we face in real life are inherently risky and can result in one of many possible outcomes. However, most of what we know about choice under risk is based on studies that use options with only two possible outcomes (simple gambles), so it remains unclear how the brain constructs reward values for more complex risky options faced in real life. To address this question, we combined experimental and modeling approaches to examine choice between pairs of simple gambles and pairs of three-outcome gambles in male and female human subjects. We found that subjects evaluated individual outcomes of three-outcome gambles by multiplying functions of reward magnitude and probability. To construct the overall value of each gamble, however, most subjects differentially weighted possible outcomes based on either reward magnitude or probability. These results reveal a novel dissociation between how reward information is processed when evaluating complex gambles: valuation of each outcome is based on an integrated value whereas combination of possible outcomes relies on a single piece of reward information. We show that differential weighting of possible outcomes enabled subjects to make decisions more easily and quickly. Together, these findings reveal a plausible mechanism for how salience, in terms of possible reward magnitude or probability, can influence the construction of subjective values for complex gambles. They also point to separable neural mechanisms for how reward value controls choice and attention in order to allow for more adaptive decision making.