Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31359378›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020

A theoretical analysis of the reward rate optimality of collapsing decision criteria.

Udo Boehm, Leendert van Maanen, Nathan J Evans, Scott D Brown, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Udo BoehmDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712TS, Groningen, The Netherlands. u.bohm@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8677-0721
Leendert van MaanenDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 XA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nathan J EvansSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Scott D BrownSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Eric-Jan WagenmakersDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 XA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A standard assumption of most sequential sampling models is that decision-makers rely on a decision criterion that remains constant throughout the decision process. However, several authors have recently suggested that, in order to maximize reward rates in dynamic environments, decision-makers need to rely on a decision criterion that changes over the course of the decision process. We used dynamic programming and simulation methods to quantify the reward rates obtained by constant and dynamic decision criteria in different environments. We further investigated what influence a decision-maker's uncertainty about the stochastic structure of the environment has on reward rates. Our results show that in most dynamic environments, both types of decision criteria yield similar reward rates, across different levels of uncertainty. This suggests that a static decision criterion might provide a robust default setting.

Indexed as

RewardDecision MakingHumansUncertaintyCollapsing boundsDiffusion modelReward rate maximization

Identifiers

PMID31359378
PMCPMC7303092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.