ArticleeLife2021
Dynamic decision policy reconfiguration under outcome uncertainty.
Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- How cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic subnetworks can shift decision policies to increase reward rate.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Distinct dopaminergic spike-timing-dependent plasticity rules are suited to different functional roles.Research square · 2025Article
- Distinct dopaminergic spike-timing-dependent plasticity rules are suited to different functional roles.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Cortical β Power Reflects a Neural Implementation of Decision Boundary Collapse in Speeded Decisions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Identifying control ensembles for information processing within the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic circuit.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Cognitive Control as a Multivariate Optimization Problem.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In uncertain or unstable environments, sometimes the best decision is to change your mind. To shed light on this flexibility, we evaluated how the underlying decision policy adapts when the most rewarding action changes. Human participants performed a dynamic two-armed bandit task that manipulated the certainty in relative reward (conflict) and the reliability of action-outcomes (volatility). Continuous estimates of conflict and volatility contributed to shifts in exploratory states by changing both the rate of evidence accumulation (drift rate) and the amount of evidence needed to make a decision (boundary height), respectively. At the trialwise level, following a switch in the optimal choice, the drift rate plummets and the boundary height weakly spikes, leading to a slow exploratory state. We find that the drift rate drives most of this response, with an unreliable contribution of boundary height across experiments. Surprisingly, we find no evidence that pupillary responses associated with decision policy changes. We conclude that humans show a stereotypical shift in their decision policies in response to environmental changes.
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.