↓ Skip to main content

Goal Achievement Failure Drives Corticospinal Modulation in Promotion and Prevention Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Goal Achievement Failure Drives Corticospinal Modulation in Promotion and Prevention Contexts
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emanuele Lo Gerfo, Alberto Pisoni, Stefania Ottone, Ferruccio Ponzano, Luca Zarri, Alessandra Vergallito, Erica Varoli, Davide Fedeli, Leonor J. Romero Lauro

Abstract

When making decisions, people are typically differently sensitive to gains and losses according to the motivational context in which the choice is performed. As hypothesized by Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), indeed, goals are supposed to change in relation to the set of possible outcomes. In particular, in a promotion context, the goal is achieving the maximal gain, whereas in a prevention context it turns into avoiding the greatest loss. We explored the neurophysiological counterpart of this phenomenon, by applying Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and recording the motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in participants taking part in an economic game, in which they observed actions conveying different goal attainment levels, framed in different motivational contexts. More than the actual value of the economic exchange involved in the game, what affected motor cortex excitability was the goal attainment failure, corresponding to not achieving the maximal payoff in a promotion context and not avoiding the greatest snatch in a prevention context. Therefore, the results provide support for the key predictions of RFT, identifying a neural signature for the goal attainment failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 23%
Psychology 4 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,101,346
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,768
of 3,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,766
of 326,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#46
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.