Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34921144›Full record

ArticleNature communications2021

Sources of confidence in value-based choice.

Jeroen Brus, Helena Aebersold, Marcus Grueschow, Rafael Polania

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Limits of Optimization.Minds and machines · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Jeroen BrusDecision Neuroscience Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. jeroen.brus@hest.ethz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3935-2703
Helena AebersoldEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4418-9904
Marcus GrueschowZurich Center for Neuroeconomics (ZNE), Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1911-2742
Rafael PolaniaDecision Neuroscience Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. rafael.polania@hest.ethz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6176-6806

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confidence, the subjective estimate of decision quality, is a cognitive process necessary for learning from mistakes and guiding future actions. The origins of confidence judgments resulting from economic decisions remain unclear. We devise a task and computational framework that allowed us to formally tease apart the impact of various sources of confidence in value-based decisions, such as uncertainty emerging from encoding and decoding operations, as well as the interplay between gaze-shift dynamics and attentional effort. In line with canonical decision theories, trial-to-trial fluctuations in the precision of value encoding impact economic choice consistency. However, this uncertainty has no influence on confidence reports. Instead, confidence is associated with endogenous attentional effort towards choice alternatives and down-stream noise in the comparison process. These findings provide an explanation for confidence (miss)attributions in value-guided behaviour, suggesting mechanistic influences of endogenous attentional states for guiding decisions and metacognitive awareness of choice certainty.

Identifiers

PMID34921144
PMCPMC8683513

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.