Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37418378›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

What mechanisms mediate prior probability effects on rapid-choice decision-making?

Rohan Puri, Mark R Hinder, Andrew Heathcote

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Rohan PuriSensorimotor Neuroscience and Ageing Research Group, School of Psychological Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0231-1369
Mark R HinderSensorimotor Neuroscience and Ageing Research Group, School of Psychological Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Andrew HeathcoteSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid-choice decision-making is biased by prior probability of response alternatives. Conventionally, prior probability effects are assumed to selectively affect, response threshold, which determines the amount of evidence required to trigger a decision. However, there may also be effects on the rate at which evidence is accumulated and the time required for non-decision processes (e.g., response production). Healthy young (n = 21) and older (n = 20) adults completed a choice response-time task requiring left- or right-hand responses to imperative stimuli. Prior probability was manipulated using a warning stimulus that informed participants that a particular response was 70% likely (i.e., the imperative stimulus was either congruent or incongruent with the warning stimulus). In addition, prior probability was either fixed for blocks of trials (block-wise bias) or varied from trial-to-trial (trial-wise bias). Response time and accuracy data were analysed using the racing diffusion evidence-accumulation model to test the selective influence assumption. Response times for correct responses were slower on incongruent than congruent trials, and older adults' responses were slower, but more accurate, than young adults. Evidence-accumulation modelling favoured an effect of prior probability on both response thresholds and nondecision time. Overall, the current results cast doubt on the selective threshold influence assumption in the racing diffusion model.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAgedHumansProbabilityReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID37418378
PMCPMC10328325

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.