ArticleScientific reports2020
A brain network that supports consensus-seeking and conflict-resolving of college couples' shopping interaction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A large-scale heterogeneous 3D magnetic resonance brain imaging dataset for self-supervised learning.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Unsupervised skull segmentation in MR images utilizing modality translation and super-resolution.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the typical campus scenes is the social interaction between college couples, and the lesson couples must keep learning is to adapt to each other. This fMRI study investigated the shopping interactions of 30 college couples, one lying inside and the other outside the scanner, beholding the same item from two connected PCs, making preference ratings and subsequent buy/not-buy decisions. The behavioral results showed the clear modulation of significant others' preferences onto one's own decisions, and the contrast of the "shop-together vs. shop-alone", and the "congruent (both liked or disliked the item, 68%) vs. incongruent (one liked but the other disliked, and vice versa)" together trials, both revealed bilateral temporal parietal junction (TPJ) among other reward-related regions, likely reflecting mentalizing during preference harmony. Moreover, when contrasting "own-high/other-low vs. own-low/other-high" incongruent trials, left anterior inferior parietal lobule (l-aIPL) was parametrically mapped, and the "yield (e.g., own-high/not-buy) vs. insist (e.g., own-low/not-buy)" modulation further revealed left lateral-IPL (l-lIPL), together with left TPJ forming a local social decision network that was further constrained by the mediation analysis among left TPJ-lIPL-aIPL. In sum, these results exemplify, via the two-person fMRI, the neural substrate of shopping interactions between couples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.