Neuropsychology of risky gains/losses Time of measurement Conditions Active regions identiﬁed Sample size Result Levin et al. Table 1 | Continued Authors and year Focal topic Risky decision- making Losses (aversive Lateral orbitofrontal cortex olfactory learning) Medial orbitofrontal cortex Nucleus accumbens Temporal pole/piriform cortex During Gains (risky Insula Paulus et al. decision-making response versus Cuneus (2003) safe response) Precuneus Middle frontal gyrus Losses (risky Inferior frontal gyrus response versus punishment Insula response) Superior parietal lobule Uncertain During Gains/losses Insula Huettel decision- decision-making (increasing Inferior frontal gyrus et al. (2005) making uncertainty) Middle frontal gyrus Thalamus Inferior parietal lobule Intraparietal sulcus Processing of During Gains (appetitive Medial orbitofrontal cortex Plassmann appetitive decision-making goal values) et al. (2010) versus (decision-making Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex aversive goal phase) Losses (aversive Medial orbitofrontal cortex values goal values) Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex TIME OF MEASUREMENT AFTER DECISION-MAKING (OUTCOME PROCESSING) Ambiguous After Gains (gamble Occipital cortex Hsu et al. decision- decision-making versus certainty) Medial frontal gyrus (2005) making (response to risk) Brodmann area 6 Precentral gyrus Insula Caudate head Brodmann area 18 Insula Middle temporal gyrus Losses (certainty Precentral gyrus versus gamble) Occipital cortex Monetary After Gain-speciﬁc regions Anterior cingulate cortex Fujiwara reward and decision-making Posterior cingulate cortex et al. (2009) punishment (presentation of Superior frontal gyrus chosen outcome) Inferior operculum Insula Midbrain Inferior temporal gyrus Inferior parietal lobule Cerebellum Loss-speciﬁc regions Anterior cingulate cortex Inferior operculum Insula Common gain and Anterior cingulate cortex loss regions Posterior cingulate cortex Postcentral gyrus 17 12 19 16 17 Study does not clearly sup- port separate structures because same key region (here: insula) was activated for both gains and losses but to a greater extent for risky versus safe responses Study does not clearly sup- port separate structures because same regions were activated for both gains and losses Study does not sup- port separate structures because same key regions were activated for both gains and losses Study supports separate structures because addi- tional other regions were activated for gains com- pared to losses Study does not sup- port separate structures because same key regions were activated for both gains and losses (Continued) Frontiers in Neuroscience | Decision Neuroscience February 2012 | Volume 6 | Article 15 | 8