ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2018
Time-varying decision boundaries: insights from optimality analysis.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 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
38 citing papers in PubMed.
- The perils of omitting omissions when modeling evidence accumulation.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Efficient Inference in First Passage Time Models.Statistics and computing · 2026Article
- Human decision-makers terminate evidence accumulation using flexible decision rules.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- How the dynamic interplay of cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic pathways shapes the time course of deliberation and commitment.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Deciding for others alters metacognition leading to responsibility aversion.Science advances · 2026Article
- How cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic subnetworks can shift decision policies to increase reward rate.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Parameter estimation of hyper-spherical diffusion models with a time-dependent threshold: An integral equation method.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Article
- The limits of metacognitive control during perceptual decision-making: opting out without improving accuracy.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Subthalamic control of impulsive actions: insights from deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2024Review
- Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Support for the Time-Varying Drift Rate Model of Perceptual Discrimination in Dynamic and Static Noise Using Bayesian Model-Fitting Methodology.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Joint modeling of choices and reaction times based on Bayesian contextual behavioral control.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Dissociation between area TE and rhinal cortex in accuracy vs. speed of visual categorization in rhesus monkeys.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- How honey bees make fast and accurate decisions.eLife · 2023Article
- Using cognitive modeling to examine the effects of competition on strategy and effort in races and tournaments.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Article
- Degenerate boundaries for multiple-alternative decisions.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Biophysical and Architectural Mechanisms of Subthalamic Theta under Response Conflict.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Performance-gated deliberation: A context-adapted strategy in which urgency is opportunity cost.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The most widely used account of decision-making proposes that people choose between alternatives by accumulating evidence in favor of each alternative until this evidence reaches a decision boundary. It is frequently assumed that this decision boundary stays constant during a decision, depending on the evidence collected but not on time. Recent experimental and theoretical work has challenged this assumption, showing that constant decision boundaries are, in some circumstances, sub-optimal. We introduce a theoretical model that facilitates identification of the optimal decision boundaries under a wide range of conditions. Time-varying optimal decision boundaries for our model are a result only of uncertainty over the difficulty of each trial and do not require decision deadlines or costs associated with collecting evidence, as assumed by previous authors. Furthermore, the shape of optimal decision boundaries depends on the difficulties of different decisions. When some trials are very difficult, optimal boundaries decrease with time, but for tasks that only include a mixture of easy and medium difficulty trials, the optimal boundaries increase or stay constant. We also show how this simple model can be extended to more complex decision-making tasks such as when people have unequal priors or when they can choose to opt out of decisions. The theoretical model presented here provides an important framework to understand how, why, and whether decision boundaries should change over time in experiments on decision-making.
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.