ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019
The Interaction Between Elapsed Time and Decision Accuracy Differs Between Humans and Rats.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.
- Quantifying uncertainty in drift diffusion models of decision making under temporal dependence and parameter variability.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Context-dependent activation of V1 parvalbumin interneurons enhances visual discrimination.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Trial-history biases in evidence accumulation can give rise to apparent lapses in decision-making.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Of Rodents and Primates: Time-Variant Gain in Drift-Diffusion Decision Models.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Crows protect visual working memory against interference.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023Article
- Trial-history biases in evidence accumulation can give rise to apparent lapses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Mice alternate between discrete strategies during perceptual decision-making.Nature neuroscience · 2022Article
- Temporal order judgment of multisensory stimuli in rat and human.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Different Forms of Variability Could Explain a Difference Between Human and Rat Decision Making.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Probabilistic discrimination of relative stimulus features in mice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- The Interaction Between Elapsed Time and Decision Accuracy Differs Between Humans and Rats.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A stochastic visual motion discrimination task is widely used to study rapid decision-making in humans and animals. Among trials of the same sensory difficulty within a block of fixed decision strategy, humans and monkeys are widely reported to make more errors in the individual trials with longer reaction times. This finding has posed a challenge for the drift-diffusion model of sensory decision-making, which in its basic form predicts that errors and correct responses should have the same reaction time distributions. We previously reported that rats also violate this model prediction, but in the opposite direction: for rats, motion discrimination accuracy was highest in the trials with the longest reaction times. To rule out task differences as the cause of our divergent finding in rats, the present study tested humans and rats using the same task and analyzed their data identically. We confirmed that rats' accuracy increased with reaction time, whereas humans' accuracy decreased with reaction time in the same task. These results were further verified using a new temporally local analysis method, ruling out that the observed trend was an artifact of non-stationarity in the data of either species. The main effect was found whether the signal strength (motion coherence) was varied in randomly interleaved trials or held constant within a block. The magnitude of the effects increased with motion coherence. These results provide new constraints useful for refining and discriminating among the many alternative mathematical theories of decision-making.
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.