Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30767807›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2018

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Patrick Simen, Fuat Balcı

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Patrick SimenNeuroscience Department,Oberlin College,OH 44074.psimen@oberlin.eduhttp://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/psimen/.
Fuat BalcıDepartment of Psychology & Research Center for Translational Medicine,Koç University,34450 Sarıyer/Istanbul,Turkey.fbalci@ku.edu.trhttps://tmdmlab.ku.edu.tr/.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive "standard observer model" of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors' claims.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRewardHumansInfant

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.