ArticleiScience2021
Integration of sensory evidence and reward expectation in mouse perceptual decision-making task with various sensory uncertainties.
Article in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stimulus uncertainty and relative reward rates determine adaptive responding in perceptual decision-making.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Reconciling Signal-Detection Models of Criterion Learning with the Generalized Matching Law.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Global neural encoding of behavioral strategies in mice during perceptual decision-making task with two different sensory patterns.iScience · 2024Article
- Localized and global representation of prior value, sensory evidence, and choice in male mouse cerebral cortex.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Probabilistic integration of preceding responses explains response bias in perceptual decision making.iScience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In perceptual decision-making, prior knowledge of action outcomes is essential, especially when sensory inputs are insufficient for proper choices. Signal detection theory (SDT) shows that optimal choice bias depends not only on the prior but also the sensory uncertainty; however, it is unclear how animals integrate sensory inputs with various uncertainties and reward expectations to optimize choices. We developed a tone-frequency discrimination task for head-fixed mice in which we randomly presented either a long or short sound stimulus and biased the choice outcomes. The choice was less accurate and more biased toward the large-reward side in short- than in long-stimulus trials. Analysis with SDT found that mice did not use a separate, optimal choice threshold in different sound durations. Instead, mice updated one threshold for short and long stimuli with a simple reinforcement-learning rule. Our task in head-fixed mice helps understanding how the brain integrates sensory inputs and prior.
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.