Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27470436›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

The random dot tachistogram: a novel task that elucidates the functional architecture of decision.

Wilfried Genest, Robert Hammond, R H S Carpenter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wilfried GenestDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EG UK.
Robert HammondDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EG UK.
R H S CarpenterDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EG UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reaction times are long and variable, almost certainly because they result from a process that accumulates noisy decision signals over time, rising to a threshold. But the origin of the variability is still disputed: is it because the incoming sensory signals are themselves noisy? Or does it arise within the brain? Here we use a stimulus - the random dot tachistogram - which demands spatial integration of information presented essentially instantaneously; with it, we demonstrate three things. First, that the latency distributions still show the variability characteristic of LATER, implying that there must be two integrators in series. Secondly, that since this variability persists despite removal of all temporal noise from the stimulus, or even trial-to-trial spatial variation, it must come from within the nervous system. Finally, that the average rate of rise of the decision signal depends linearly on how many dots move in a given direction. Taken together, this suggests a rather simple, two-stage model of the overall process. The first, detection, stage performs local temporal integration of stimuli; the local, binary, outcomes are linearly summed and integrated by LATER units in the second stage, that perform the final global decision by a process of racing competition.

Identifiers

PMID27470436
PMCPMC4965790
OpenAlexW2497180250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.