Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32016686›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2020

From high- to one-dimensional dynamics of decision making: testing simplifications in attractor models.

Martin Schoemann, Stefan Scherbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Martin SchoemannDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, 01069, Dresden, Germany. martin.schoemann@tu-dresden.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2531-4175
Stefan ScherbaumDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, 01069, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4408-6016

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DE) SFB940/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational models introduce simplifications that need to be understood and validated. For attractor models of decision making, the main simplification is the high-level representation of different sub-processes of the complex decision system in one dynamic description of the overall process dynamics. This simplification implies that the overall process dynamics of the decision system are independent from specific values handled in different sub-processes. Here, we test the validity of this simplification empirically by investigating choice perseveration in a nonverbal, value-based decision task. Specifically, we tested whether choice perseveration occurred irrespectively of the attribute dimension as suggested by a simulation of the computational model. We find evidence supporting the validity of the simplification. We conclude that the simplification might capture mechanistic aspects of decision-making processes, and that the summation of the overall process dynamics of decision systems into one single variable is a valid approach in computational modeling. Supplement materials such as empirical data, analysis scripts, and the computational model are publicly available at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/7fb5q).

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDecision MakingHumansModels, PsychologicalAttractor modelChoice historyDecision makingProcess dynamicsSequence effects

Identifiers

PMID32016686
PMCPMC7203584

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.