ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2016
The hunt for the perfect discounting function and a reckoning of time perception.
Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dopamine transients follow a striatal gradient of reward time horizons.Nature neuroscience · 2024Article
- Dorsal raphe neurons signal integrated value during multi-attribute decision-making.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Dopamine and the interdependency of time perception and reward.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Making decisions that factor the cost of time is fundamental to survival. Yet, while it is readily appreciated that our perception of time is intimately involved in this process, theories regarding intertemporal decision-making and theories regarding time perception are treated, largely, independently. Even within these respective domains, models providing good fits to data fail to provide insight as to why, from a normative sense, those fits should take their apparent form. Conversely, normative models that proffer a rationalization for why an agent should weigh options in a particular way, or to perceive time in a particular way, fail to account for the full body of well-established experimental evidence. Here we review select, yet key advances in our understanding, identifying conceptual breakthroughs in the fields of intertemporal decision-making and in time perception, as well as their limits and failings in the face of hard-won experimental observation. On this background of accrued knowledge, a new conception unifying the domains of decision-making and time perception is put forward (Training-Integrated Maximization of Reinforcement Rate, TIMERR) to provide a better fit to observations and a more parsimonious reckoning of why we make choices, and thereby perceive time, the way we do.
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.