Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31586868›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2019

ChaRTr: An R toolbox for modeling choices and response times in decision-making tasks.

Chandramouli Chandrasekaran, Guy E Hawkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Chandramouli ChandrasekaranDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Systems Neuroscience, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: cchandr1@bu.edu.
Guy E HawkinsSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Australia. Electronic address: guy.hawkins@newcastle.edu.au.

Funding

Organization and Dynamics of Premotor and Prefrontal Cortical Circuits Mediating Goal-Directed BehaviorR00NS092972 · NINDS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI CHANDRASEKARAN, CHANDRAMOULI · 2018 to 2020
$747k
Organization and Dynamics of Premotor and Prefrontal Cortical Circuits Mediating Goal-Directed BehaviorK99NS092972 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHANDRASEKARAN, CHANDRAMOULI · 2015 to 2016
$175k
NINDS NIH HHS K99 NS092972NINDS NIH HHS R00 NS092972
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision-making is the process of choosing and performing actions in response to sensory cues to achieve behavioral goals. Many mathematical models have been developed to describe the choice behavior and response time (RT) distributions of observers performing decision-making tasks. However, relatively few researchers use these models because it demands expertise in various numerical, statistical, and software techniques. NEW

methodWe present a toolbox - Choices and Response Times in R, or ChaRTr - that provides the user the ability to implement and test a wide variety of decision-making models ranging from classic through to modern versions of the diffusion decision model, to models with urgency signals, or collapsing boundaries.

resultsIn three different case studies, we demonstrate how ChaRTr can be used to effortlessly discriminate between multiple models of decision-making behavior. We also provide guidance on how to extend the toolbox to incorporate future developments in decision-making models. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): Existing software packages surmounted some of the numerical issues but have often focused on the classical decision-making model, the diffusion decision model. Recent models that posit roles for urgency, time-varying decision thresholds, noise in various aspects of the decision-formation process or low pass filtering of sensory evidence have proven to be challenging to incorporate in a coherent software framework that permits quantitative evaluation among these competing classes of decision-making models.

conclusionChaRTr can be used to make insightful statements about the cognitive processes underlying observed decision-making behavior and ultimately for deeper insights into decision mechanisms.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalTask Performance and AnalysisChoice BehaviorDecision MakingHumansNeurosciencesReaction TimeSoftwareAICBICChoiceDDMDecision makingDiffusion decision modelModel selectionResponse time (RT)Urgency gating

Identifiers

PMID31586868
PMCPMC6980795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.