ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021
The description-experience gap: a challenge for the neuroeconomics of decision-making under uncertainty.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Context induces distortions in value representations across multiple elicitation methods and learning modalities.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Rapid dopaminergic signatures in movement: Reach vigor reflects reward prediction error and learned expectation.Science advances · 2026Article
- Feedback-induced attitudinal changes in risk preferences.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Social inequity disrupts reward-based learning.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Rapid Dopaminergic Signatures in Movement: Reach Vigor Reflects Reward Prediction Error and Learned Expectation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A dissociation between the use of implicit and explicit priors in perceptual inference.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Predecisional information search adaptively reduces three types of uncertainty.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- A neural code supporting prospective probabilistic reasoning for instrumental information demand in humans.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Comparing experience- and description-based economic preferences across 11 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- The parieto-occipital cortex is a candidate neural substrate for the human ability to approximate Bayesian inference.Communications biology · 2024Article
- The rat frontal orienting field dynamically encodes value for economic decisions under risk.Nature neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Dynamic prospect theory: Two core decision theories coexist in the gambling behavior of monkeys and humans.Science advances · 2023Article
- Outcome context-dependence is not WEIRD: Comparing reinforcement- and description-based economic preferences worldwide.Research square · 2023Article
- Vulnerability or resilience? Examining trust asymmetry from the perspective of risk sources under descriptive versus experiential decision.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Decision neuroscience and neuroeconomics: Recent progress and ongoing challenges.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Review
- Trusting and learning from others: immediate and long-term effects of learning from observation and advice.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- An association between prediction errors and risk-seeking: Theory and behavioral evidence.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Impact of internal and external factors on prosocial choices in rhesus macaques.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Economic behaviours among non-human primates.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The experimental investigation of decision-making in humans relies on two distinct types of paradigms, involving either description- or experience-based choices. In description-based paradigms, decision variables (i.e. payoffs and probabilities) are explicitly communicated by means of symbols. In experience-based paradigms decision variables are learnt from trial-by-trial feedback. In the decision-making literature, 'description-experience gap' refers to the fact that different biases are observed in the two experimental paradigms. Remarkably, well-documented biases of description-based choices, such as under-weighting of rare events and loss aversion, do not apply to experience-based decisions. Here, we argue that the description-experience gap represents a major challenge, not only to current decision theories, but also to the neuroeconomics research framework, which relies heavily on the translation of neurophysiological findings between human and non-human primate research. In fact, most non-human primate neurophysiological research relies on behavioural designs that share features of both description- and experience-based choices. As a consequence, it is unclear whether the neural mechanisms built from non-human primate electrophysiology should be linked to description-based or experience-based decision-making processes. The picture is further complicated by additional methodological gaps between human and non-human primate neuroscience research. After analysing these methodological challenges, we conclude proposing new lines of research to address them. This article is part of the theme issue 'Existence and prevalence of economic behaviours among non-human primates'.
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.