Neuroeconomics & Brain Dynamics

From risky choices to computational phenotypes

How consistently do people express preferences under uncertainty, and how do these patterns relate to individual differences in neural processing? The group integrates experimental choice paradigms, psychometric modeling, multivariate statistical analysis and electrophysiology.

67Adults in the 2026 risky-choice study

4Behavioral descriptors: risk attitude, context variation, choice consistency and lapse-related stochasticity

53 / 14Participants in the retained two-profile model

Interpretation: reproducible behavioral stratifications do not establish two discrete psychological populations. The 2026 paper provides a basis for future analyses of neural dynamics, not evidence of already established profile-specific brain differences.

Computational methodology

Experimental design and quantitative analysis

Behavioral measurement

Repeated binary choices between a safe value and two equiprobable gain outcomes, with expected value and outcome variance manipulated independently.

Computational descriptors

Certainty-equivalent contrasts, differences across decision contexts, psychometric slopes and lapse estimates characterize each participant.

Model-based profiles

Gaussian finite-mixture analyses with controlled covariance structure, posterior membership probabilities and subsampling-based stability checks.

Neural correlates

Earlier EEG studies examine how fairness-related decisions in Dictator and Ultimatum Games are accompanied by event-related brain responses.

Original peer-reviewed illustrations

Published figures: choices, fitted curves and group structure

**Figure 5 · Lintas & Villa (2026).** Projections of the model-derived behavioral profiles in the multidimensional risk–consistency space. This is the flagship result illustration. Original publication ↗

**Figure 1 · Lintas & Villa (2026).** Example trial sequence for the safe-versus-risky decision-making task. Original publication ↗

**Figure 2 · Lintas & Villa (2026).** Fitted choice functions and certainty equivalents in four conditions. Original publication ↗

**Figure 1 · Miraghaie et al. (2022).** Dictator Game task procedure, stimulus timing and ERP trigger. Original publication ↗

**Figure 5 · Miraghaie et al. (2022).** Grand-average fronto-central ERP responses during Dictator and Ultimatum Games. Original publication ↗

Current interpretation

What the evidence supports

The 2026 study found a two-profile behavioral representation that remained stable across several preprocessing and resampling checks. One profile showed greater risk aversion and less consistent expression of preferences, while the other was closer to risk neutrality with more consistent choices. These are statistical descriptions of this sample.

The 2022 study provides complementary electrophysiological findings from fairness-related decisions. Connecting behavioral profiles with temporally resolved neural signals remains an active research direction.

References & provenance

Selected publications

Lintas, A., & Villa, A. E. P. (2026). Risk attitude and choice consistency identify robust behavioral profiles in decision-making under risk. BioSystems 268, 105927.

doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2026.105927 ↗

Miraghaie, A. M., et al. (2022). Electrophysiological Markers of Fairness and Selfishness Revealed by a Combination of Dictator and Ultimatum Games. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 16, 765720.

doi:10.3389/fnsys.2022.765720 ↗

Original published figures are reproduced with acknowledgement and links to their source articles. NHRG-supplied and openly licensed images are stored locally in this website.