ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2015
The strength of gradually accruing probabilistic evidence modulates brain activity during a categorical decision.
Article in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergence of Categorical Representations in Parietal and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex across Extended Training.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Neural Correlates of Evidence and Urgency During Human Perceptual Decision-Making in Dynamically Changing Conditions.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2020Article
- A response-locking protocol to boost sensitivity for fMRI-based neurochronometry.Human brain mapping · 2020Article
- Brain Mechanisms of Concept Learning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Review
- Perceptual and categorical decision making: goal-relevant representation of two domains at different levels of abstraction.Journal of neurophysiology · 2017Article
- Neural signatures of experience-based improvements in deterministic decision-making.Behavioural brain research · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The evolution of neural activity during a perceptual decision is well characterized by the evidence parameter in sequential sampling models. However, it is not known whether accumulating signals in human neuroimaging are related to the integration of evidence. Our aim was to determine whether activity accumulates in a nonperceptual task by identifying brain regions tracking the strength of probabilistic evidence. fMRI was used to measure whole-brain activity as choices were informed by integrating a series of learned prior probabilities. Participants first learned the predictive relationship between a set of shape stimuli and one of two choices. During scanned testing, they made binary choices informed by the sum of the predictive strengths of individual shapes. Sequences of shapes adhered to three distinct rates of evidence (RoEs): rapid, gradual, and switch. We predicted that activity in regions informing the decision would modulate as a function of RoE prior to the choice. Activity in some regions, including premotor areas, changed as a function of RoE and response hand, indicating a role in forming an intention to respond. Regions in occipital, temporal, and parietal lobes modulated as a function of RoE only, suggesting a preresponse stage of evidence processing. In all of these regions, activity was greatest on rapid trials and least on switch trials, which is consistent with an accumulation-to-boundary account. In contrast, activity in a set of frontal and parietal regions was greatest on switch and least on rapid trials, which is consistent with an effort or time-on-task account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.