ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2016
Of monkeys and men: Impatience in perceptual decision-making.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different Forms of Variability Could Explain a Difference Between Human and Rat Decision Making.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Seven steps toward more transparency in statistical practice.Nature human behaviour · 2021Review
- Article
- Time perception and timed decision task performance during passive heat stress.Temperature (Austin, Tex.) · 2020Article
- A theoretical analysis of the reward rate optimality of collapsing decision criteria.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- ChaRTr: An R toolbox for modeling choices and response times in decision-making tasks.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2019Article
- Core body temperature speeds up temporal processing and choice behavior under deadlines.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2018Article
- Global gain modulation generates time-dependent urgency during perceptual choice in humans.Nature communications · 2016Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For decades sequential sampling models have successfully accounted for human and monkey decision-making, relying on the standard assumption that decision makers maintain a pre-set decision standard throughout the decision process. Based on the theoretical argument of reward rate maximization, some authors have recently suggested that decision makers become increasingly impatient as time passes and therefore lower their decision standard. Indeed, a number of studies show that computational models with an impatience component provide a good fit to human and monkey decision behavior. However, many of these studies lack quantitative model comparisons and systematic manipulations of rewards. Moreover, the often-cited evidence from single-cell recordings is not unequivocal and complimentary data from human subjects is largely missing. We conclude that, despite some enthusiastic calls for the abandonment of the standard model, the idea of an impatience component has yet to be fully established; we suggest a number of recently developed tools that will help bring the debate to a conclusive settlement.
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.