ArticleeLife2018
Ongoing, rational calibration of reward-driven perceptual biases.
Article in eLife, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct involvements of the subthalamic nucleus subpopulations in reward-biased decision-making in monkeys.eLife · 2026Article
- Type-1 and type-2 decisions feature computational noise of similar magnitude.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Distinct involvements of the subthalamic nucleus subpopulations in reward-biased decision-making in monkeys.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Rewarding animals based on their subjective percepts is enabled by online Bayesian estimation of perceptual biases.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- A population representation of the confidence in a decision in the parietal cortex.Cell reports · 2025Article
- A Population Representation of the Confidence in a Decision in the Parietal Cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Sensory choices as logistic classification.Neuron · 2024Review
- Temporal regularities shape perceptual decisions and striatal dopamine signals.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Sensory choices as logistic classification.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Trial-history biases in evidence accumulation can give rise to apparent lapses in decision-making.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Neural Representations of Post-Decision Accuracy and Reward Expectation in the Caudate Nucleus and Frontal Eye Field.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Contributions of the Basal Ganglia to Visual Perceptual Decisions.Annual review of vision science · 2023Review
- Trial-history biases in evidence accumulation can give rise to apparent lapses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Rule-based and stimulus-based cues bias auditory decisions via different computational and physiological mechanisms.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Human inference reflects a normative balance of complexity and accuracy.Nature human behaviour · 2022Article
- Suboptimal human inference can invert the bias-variance trade-off for decisions with asymmetric evidence.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Mice exhibit stochastic and efficient action switching during probabilistic decision making.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Article
- Prefrontal cortex represents heuristics that shape choice bias and its integration into future behavior.Current biology : CB · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Decision-making is often interpreted in terms of normative computations that maximize a particular reward function for stable, average behaviors. Aberrations from the reward-maximizing solutions, either across subjects or across different sessions for the same subject, are often interpreted as reflecting poor learning or physical limitations. Here we show that such aberrations may instead reflect the involvement of additional satisficing and heuristic principles. For an asymmetric-reward perceptual decision-making task, three monkeys produced adaptive biases in response to changes in reward asymmetries and perceptual sensitivity. Their choices and response times were consistent with a normative accumulate-to-bound process. However, their context-dependent adjustments to this process deviated slightly but systematically from the reward-maximizing solutions. These adjustments were instead consistent with a rational process to find satisficing solutions based on the gradient of each monkey's reward-rate function. These results suggest new dimensions for assessing the rational and idiosyncratic aspects of flexible 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.