ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015
Revisiting the evidence for collapsing boundaries and urgency signals in perceptual decision-making.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
129 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Low and variable correlation between reaction time costs and accuracy costs explained by accumulation models: Meta-analysis and simulations.Psychological bulletin · 2018Pooled it
- Cortical beta power reflects decision dynamics and uncovers multiple facets of post-error adaptation.Nature communications · 2018Trial
- The perils of omitting omissions when modeling evidence accumulation.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- HSSM: A Widely Applicable Toolbox for Hierarchical Bayesian Neurocognitive Modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Can Systematic Drift Rate Variability Replace Random Variability in the Diffusion Decision Model?Computational brain & behavior · 2026Article
- Learning Decouples Accuracy and Reaction Time for Rapid Decisions in a Transitive Inference Task.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- A brain-wide, trial- and time-dependent deterministic drive synergizes with within-trial noise to time self-initiated actions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Human decision-makers terminate evidence accumulation using flexible decision rules.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A Movement-Independent Signature of Urgency during Human Perceptual Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- How the dynamic interplay of cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic pathways shapes the time course of deliberation and commitment.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Misspecified models create the appearance of adaptive control during value-based choice.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- The role of attention in multi attribute decision making.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Hierarchical Bayesian estimation for cognitive models using Particle Metropolis within Gibbs (PMwG): A tutorial.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Learning expectations shape cognitive control allocation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- People are at least as good at optimizing reward rate under equivalent fixed-trial compared to fixed-time conditions.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Parameter estimation of hyper-spherical diffusion models with a time-dependent threshold: An integral equation method.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Integrated Ising model with global inhibition for decision-making.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Validation and Comparison of Non-stationary Cognitive Models: A Diffusion Model Application.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
For nearly 50 years, the dominant account of decision-making holds that noisy information is accumulated until a fixed threshold is crossed. This account has been tested extensively against behavioral and neurophysiological data for decisions about consumer goods, perceptual stimuli, eyewitness testimony, memories, and dozens of other paradigms, with no systematic misfit between model and data. Recently, the standard model has been challenged by alternative accounts that assume that less evidence is required to trigger a decision as time passes. Such "collapsing boundaries" or "urgency signals" have gained popularity in some theoretical accounts of neurophysiology. Nevertheless, evidence in favor of these models is mixed, with support coming from only a narrow range of decision paradigms compared with a long history of support from dozens of paradigms for the standard theory. We conducted the first large-scale analysis of data from humans and nonhuman primates across three distinct paradigms using powerful model-selection methods to compare evidence for fixed versus collapsing bounds. Overall, we identified evidence in favor of the standard model with fixed decision boundaries. We further found that evidence for static or dynamic response boundaries may depend on specific paradigms or procedures, such as the extent of task practice. We conclude that the difficulty of selecting between collapsing and fixed bounds models has received insufficient attention in previous research, calling into question some previous results.
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.