ArticleTrends in cognitive sciences2020
Human Decision-Making beyond the Rational Decision Theory.
Article in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The parieto-occipital cortex is a candidate neural substrate for the human ability to approximate Bayesian inference.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Neural mechanisms underlying the hierarchical construction of perceived aesthetic value.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Article
- Mixing memory and desire: How memory reactivation supports deliberative decision-making.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Review
- Computational models of adaptive behavior and prefrontal cortex.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022Review
- The hierarchical construction of value.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2021Article
- Additively Combining Utilities and Beliefs: Research Gaps and Algorithmic Developments.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two recent studies (Farashahi et al. and Rouault et al.) provide compelling evidence refuting the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) hypothesis as a ground model describing human decision-making. Together, these studies pave the way towards a new model that subsumes the notion of decision-making and adaptive behavior into a single account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31767211What 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.