ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2023
Mental control of uncertainty.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational basis of hierarchical and counterfactual information processing.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Action subsampling supports policy compression in large action spaces.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Bayesian estimation yields anti-Weber variability.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Neural and behavioral signatures of policy compression in cognitive control.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Time and memory costs jointly determine a speed-accuracy trade-off and set-size effects.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
- Neural and behavioral signatures of policy compression in cognitive control.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Rational inattention in neural coding for economic choice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Resource-rational psychopathology.Behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Can you reduce uncertainty by thinking? Intuition suggests that this happens through the elusive process of attention: if we expend mental effort, we can increase the reliability of our sensory data. Models based on "rational inattention" formalize this idea in terms of a trade-off between the costs and benefits of attention. This paper surveys the origin of these models in economics, their connection to rate-distortion theory, and some of their recent applications to psychology and neuroscience. We also report new data from a numerosity judgment task in which we manipulate performance incentives. Consistent with rational inattention, people are able to improve performance on this task when incentivized, in part by increasing the reliability of their sensory data.
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.