ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2017
People adopt optimal policies in simple decision-making, after practice and guidance.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019Pooled it
- A two-phase diffusion process account of cross-location conflict processing during mental imagery.iScience · 2026Article
- Autistic and non-autistic children's perceptual decision-making in visual orientation and motion tasks and the effect of task instructions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Brunswik's fundamental principle explained: A diffusion lens model of vicarious functioning.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Feedback based on simple strategies facilitates strategy execution and selection in foraging.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- People are at least as good at optimizing reward rate under equivalent fixed-trial compared to fixed-time conditions.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Validation and Comparison of Non-stationary Cognitive Models: A Diffusion Model Application.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Decision-making processes in perceptual learning depend on effectors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Are there jumps in evidence accumulation, and what, if anything, do they reflect psychologically? An analysis of Lévy Flights models of decision-making.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- Neural superstatistics for Bayesian estimation of dynamic cognitive models.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Multiple timescales of learning indicated by changes in evidence-accumulation processes during perceptual decision-making.NPJ science of learning · 2023Article
- Behavioural and neural indices of perceptual decision-making in autistic children during visual motion tasks.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Visual Motion and Decision-Making in Dyslexia: Reduced Accumulation of Sensory Evidence and Related Neural Dynamics.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Preregistration in diverse contexts: a preregistration template for the application of cognitive models.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Stability and Change in Diffusion Model Parameters over Two Years.Journal of Intelligence · 2021Article
- Neural Signature of Buying Decisions in Real-World Online Shopping Scenarios - An Exploratory Electroencephalography Study Series.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- A theoretical analysis of the reward rate optimality of collapsing decision criteria.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- A method, framework, and tutorial for efficiently simulating models of decision-making.Behavior research methods · 2019Article
- Assessing the practical differences between model selection methods in inferences about choice response time tasks.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Organisms making repeated simple decisions are faced with a tradeoff between urgent and cautious strategies. While animals can adopt a statistically optimal policy for this tradeoff, findings about human decision-makers have been mixed. Some studies have shown that people can optimize this "speed-accuracy tradeoff", while others have identified a systematic bias towards excessive caution. These issues have driven theoretical development and spurred debate about the nature of human decision-making. We investigated a potential resolution to the debate, based on two factors that routinely differ between human and animal studies of decision-making: the effects of practice, and of longer-term feedback. Our study replicated the finding that most people, by default, are overly cautious. When given both practice and detailed feedback, people moved rapidly towards the optimal policy, with many participants reaching optimality with less than 1 h of practice. Our findings have theoretical implications for cognitive and neural models of simple decision-making, as well as methodological implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27562760What 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.