Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32310962›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2020

The drift diffusion model as the choice rule in inter-temporal and risky choice: A case study in medial orbitofrontal cortex lesion patients and controls.

Jan Peters, Mark D'Esposito

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Dopamine and Temporal Discounting: Revisiting Pharmacology and Individual Differences.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Troubleshooting Bayesian cognitive models.Psychological methods · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Cardiac-Sympathetic Contractility and Neural Alpha-Band Power: Cross-Modal Collaboration during Approach-Avoidance Conflict.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jan PetersDepartment of Psychology, Biological Psychology, University of Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0195-5357
Mark D'EspositoHelen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
University of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequential sampling models such as the drift diffusion model (DDM) have a long tradition in research on perceptual decision-making, but mounting evidence suggests that these models can account for response time (RT) distributions that arise during reinforcement learning and value-based decision-making. Building on this previous work, we implemented the DDM as the choice rule in inter-temporal choice (temporal discounting) and risky choice (probability discounting) using hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation. We validated our approach in data from nine patients with focal lesions to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex / medial orbitofrontal cortex (vmPFC/mOFC) and nineteen age- and education-matched controls. Model comparison revealed that, for both tasks, the data were best accounted for by a variant of the drift diffusion model including a non-linear mapping from value-differences to trial-wise drift rates. Posterior predictive checks confirmed that this model provided a superior account of the relationship between value and RT. We then applied this modeling framework and 1) reproduced our previous results regarding temporal discounting in vmPFC/mOFC patients and 2) showed in a previously unpublished data set on risky choice that vmPFC/mOFC patients exhibit increased risk-taking relative to controls. Analyses of DDM parameters revealed that patients showed substantially increased non-decision times and reduced response caution during risky choice. In contrast, vmPFC/mOFC damage abolished neither scaling nor asymptote of the drift rate. Relatively intact value processing was also confirmed using DDM mixture models, which revealed that in both groups >98% of trials were better accounted for by a DDM with value modulation than by a null model without value modulation. Our results highlight that novel insights can be gained from applying sequential sampling models in studies of inter-temporal and risky decision-making in cognitive neuroscience.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBayes TheoremBrain InjuriesCase-Control StudiesChoice BehaviorComputer SimulationDecision MakingHumansMarkov ChainsNonlinear DynamicsPrefrontal CortexProbabilityReaction TimeReinforcement, PsychologyRewardTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID32310962
PMCPMC7192518
OpenAlexW3017215346

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.