Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33253163›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2020

Rules warp feature encoding in decision-making circuits.

R Becket Ebitz, Jiaxin Cindy Tu, Benjamin Y Hayden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sex-biased computations underlying differential set shift performance in mice.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Individual differences in sequential decision-making.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Humans forage for reward in reinforcement learning tasks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  12. Dopamine and Norepinephrine Differentially Mediate the Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The thalamus in psychosis spectrum disorder.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

R Becket EbitzDepartment of Neuroscience, Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, and Center for Neuroengineering University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5412-9502
Jiaxin Cindy TuDepartment of Neuroscience, Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, and Center for Neuroengineering University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1982-9890
Benjamin Y HaydenDepartment of Neuroscience, Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, and Center for Neuroengineering University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7678-4281

Funding

Repeated cocaine exposure and striatal contributions to cognitive controlR01DA038106 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI HAYDEN, BENJAMIN Y · 2014 to 2018
$1.8M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA038106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have the capacity to follow arbitrary stimulus-response rules, meaning simple policies that guide our behavior. Rule identity is broadly encoded across decision-making circuits, but there are less data on how rules shape the computations that lead to choices. One idea is that rules could simplify these computations. When we follow a rule, there is no need to encode or compute information that is irrelevant to the current rule, which could reduce the metabolic or energetic demands of decision-making. However, it is not clear if the brain can actually take advantage of this computational simplicity. To test this idea, we recorded from neurons in 3 regions linked to decision-making, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), ventral striatum (VS), and dorsal striatum (DS), while macaques performed a rule-based decision-making task. Rule-based decisions were identified via modeling rules as the latent causes of decisions. This left us with a set of physically identical choices that maximized reward and information, but could not be explained by simple stimulus-response rules. Contrasting rule-based choices with these residual choices revealed that following rules (1) decreased the energetic cost of decision-making; and (2) expanded rule-relevant coding dimensions and compressed rule-irrelevant ones. Together, these results suggest that we use rules, in part, because they reduce the costs of decision-making through a distributed representational warping in decision-making circuits.

Indexed as

AnimalsChoice BehaviorCorpus StriatumDecision MakingMacaca mulattaMaleNerve NetNervous System Physiological PhenomenaNeuronsPrefrontal CortexRewardTask Performance and AnalysisVentral Striatum

Identifiers

PMID33253163
PMCPMC7728226

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.