ArticleCurrent biology : CB2019
Flexibility of Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making.
Article in Current biology : CB, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time-adaptive modulation of evidence evaluation in rat posterior parietal cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Expressions for Bayesian confidence of drift diffusion observers in fluctuating stimuli tasks.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Timescales of Cognition in the Brain.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2021Article
- Change point detection with multiple alternatives reveals parallel evaluation of the same stream of evidence along distinct timescales.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Choices change the temporal weighting of decision evidence.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Interpreting temporal dynamics during sensory decision-making.Current opinion in physiology · 2020Article
- A Diversity of Intrinsic Timescales Underlie Neural Computations.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2020Review
- Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making and Associated Confidence Judgments Are Adapted to Task Demands.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To understand the neural mechanisms that support decision making, it is critical to characterize the timescale of evidence evaluation. Recent work has shown that subjects can adaptively adjust the timescale of evidence evaluation across blocks of trials depending on context [1]. However, it's currently unknown if adjustments to evidence evaluation occur online during deliberations based on a single stream of evidence. To examine this question, we employed a change-detection task in which subjects report their level of confidence in judging whether there has been a change in a stochastic auditory stimulus. Using a combination of psychophysical reverse correlation analyses and single-trial behavioral modeling, we compared the time period over which sensory information has leverage on detection report choices versus confidence. We demonstrate that the length of this period differs on separate sets of trials based on what's being reported. Surprisingly, confidence judgments on trials with no detection report are influenced by evidence occurring earlier than the time period of influence for detection reports. Our findings call into question models of decision formation involving static parameters that yield a singular timescale of evidence evaluation and instead suggest that the brain represents and utilizes multiple timescales of evidence evaluation during deliberation.
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.