{
  "agent": "structure",
  "paper_slug": "gadeke-2026-guilt-insula",
  "model": "supplied:runs/gadeke-2026-guilt-insula/structure-reader.answer.v5.json",
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim": "The findings rest on two samples of healthy adults: Study 1 (behaviour only) with 40 participants and Study 2 (fMRI) with 44 participants — a sample size fixed a priori by a G*Power analysis on Study 1's effect size, with four Study 2 participants excluded from the fMRI analysis for excessive head motion.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "scope",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "Forty healthy participants (14 male, mean age 26.1, range 22–31) participated in Study 1 (behaviour only study), and 44 healthy participants (19 male, mean (SD) age = 30.6 (6.5), range 23–50) participated in Study 2 (fMRI study).",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "Global scope condition bounding every empirical claim; the a-priori sample size and the four-participant head-motion exclusion are folded in as components of it rather than returned as separate claims.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "On each trial participants chose between a safe and a risky monetary option under three conditions: choosing for oneself (Solo), for oneself and the partner (Social), and having the partner choose for both (Partner).",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "scope",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "There were three kinds of trials: decisions by the participant only for themselves ( Solo condition), decisions by the participant for themselves and the partner ( Social condition), and decisions by the partner for both themselves and the participant ( Partner condition).",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "The within-subject responsibility manipulation on which the guilt and agency contrasts depend.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "To hold the partner's behaviour constant across participants, the partner's decisions were simulated by an algorithm that always selected the option with the highest expected value.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "methodological",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "In order to ascertain constant decisions by the partner, the partner’s decisions were simulated using a simple algorithm that always selected the option with the highest expected value",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "The partner was not a free agent; partner choices in the Partner condition were deterministic, which the responsibility/guilt contrasts rely on.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "A pre-task icebreaker succeeded in establishing a positive attitude toward the partner: participants rated their partners above 8 on a 1–10 scale for sympathy, cooperativity, honesty, openness and sociability in both studies.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "empirical",
      "role": "control",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "participants’ average ratings of their partners in terms of sympathy, cooperativity, honesty, openness and sociability were all above 8 on a scale of 1–10, in both studies ( Appendix 1—table 11 ).",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "Manipulation check that the social relationship was positive and non-competitive; reported in Appendix 1—table 11.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "Study 2 reproduced the Study 1 design inside the fMRI scanner with identical parameters except for longer inter-stimulus intervals (3–11 s) and partners who were experimenters positioned outside the scanner.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "scope",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "In Study 2, participants performed two sessions of the experiment described above inside the fMRI scanner. All parameters were identical except that ISIs varied from 3 to 11 s (drawn randomly from a gamma distribution).",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "In Study 2 the partner was experimenter MG or TW rather than another participant, so any replication of the Study 1 guilt effect holds under this changed social pairing.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "Momentary happiness was modelled with five computational models that shared exponentially decaying terms for certain rewards, expected value, and reward prediction errors.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "methodological",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "All models contained separate terms for certain rewards, expected value for lotteries and reward prediction errors, with influences that decayed exponentially over trials.",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "The five models are Basic, Inequality, Guilt-envy, Responsibility, and Responsibility Redux; the Basic, Inequality and Guilt-envy models are identical to those in Rutledge et al., 2016.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "Model selection among the happiness models used likelihood ratio tests comparing the Responsibility model pairwise against each other model, supplementing AIC, BIC, R2 and adjusted R2.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "methodological",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "we supplemented the AIC, BIC, R 2 and adjusted R 2 values reported in Table 1 with a series of likelihood ratio tests : we compared pair-wise the likelihoods of the Responsibility model given the data to the likelihoods of all the other models.",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "This model comparison licenses treating the best-fitting computational model's variables as the regressors entered into the model-based fMRI GLM (GLM2).",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "A parameter-recovery analysis on synthetic data (each participant's estimated parameters, plus 1 SD of noise, refit over 10 repetitions) showed the happiness-model parameters could be reliably recovered.",
      "panel": "fig3s1",
      "claim_type": "empirical",
      "role": "control",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "The results show that the estimated parameters could be reliably recovered from noisy synthetic data.",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "Validates the stability of the fitted happiness-model parameters; based on a simulation of synthetic data (Figure 3—figure supplement 1), not experimental data.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "The happiness regression with all three two-way interactions (Equation 10) fitted the data significantly better than simpler models without interactions (p < 2e-5) and no worse than the model with all interactions (p > 0.5).",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "methodological",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "the model reported in Equation 10 fitted the data significantly better (p < 2e−5) than the simpler models without interactions (higher total and adjusted R 2 , see Appendix 1—table 2 ), but not significantly worse than the model with all interactions (p > 0.5; tested with the ANOVA function in R).",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "Warrants reporting the partnerHigh:participantDecided interaction (the guilt effect) from this specific model; details in Appendix 1—table 2.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    },
    {
      "claim": "A model-based GLM (GLM2) entered the best-fitting computational model's variables—certain rewards (CR), expected value (EV), participant RPE (sRPE), and partner RPE from participant choices (social_pRPE) and from partner choices (partner_pRPE)—as regressors to locate brain regions reflecting them.",
      "panel": null,
      "claim_type": "assessment",
      "role": "methodological",
      "addresses": null,
      "evidence": "In addition, we created another GLM (GLM2) with regressors designed to identify brain regions whose activation reflected the variables of the best-fitting computational model (see above).",
      "confidence": "high",
      "span": null,
      "notes": "The neural claims about tracking social_pRPE versus partner_pRPE depend on this model-based GLM being interpretable, which in turn depends on the model comparison above.",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "evidence_verified_against": "slice"
    }
  ]
}