Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33674206›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2021

A Decision Architecture for Safety Computations.

Sarah M Tashjian, Tomislav D Zbozinek, Dean Mobbs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Adaptive Safety Coding in the Prefrontal Cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

3 authors.

Sarah M TashjianHumanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. Electronic address: smtashji@caltech.edu.
Tomislav D ZbozinekHumanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Dean MobbsHumanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA; Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.

Funding

The Neurobiology of Social Decision-Making: Social Inference and ContextP50MH094258 · NIMH · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI ADOLPHS, RALPH · 2012 to 2021
$18.6M
NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH094258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately estimating safety is critical to pursuing nondefensive survival behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to how the human brain computes safety. We conceptualize a model that consists of two components: (i) threat-oriented evaluations that focus on threat value, imminence, and predictability; and (ii) self-oriented evaluations that focus on the agent's experience, strategies, and ability to control the situation. Our model points to the dynamic interaction between these two components as a mechanism of safety estimation. Based on a growing body of human literature, we hypothesize that distinct regions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) respond to threat and safety to facilitate survival decisions. We suggest safety is not an inverse of danger, but reflects independent computations that mediate defensive circuits and behaviors.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPrefrontal CortexBrainBrain MappingHumansdecision makingsafetythreatventromedial prefrontal cortex

Identifiers

PMID33674206
PMCPMC8035229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.