Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37819949›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Working memory and attention in choice.

Aldo Rustichini, Philippe Domenech, Claudia Civai, Colin G DeYoung

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Aldo RustichiniDepartment of Economics, University of Minnesota, Hanson Hall, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3232-351X
Philippe DomenechNeurosurgery Department, Henri Mondor Hospital, Paris, France, and Brain & Spine Institute, AP-HP, DHU PePsy, CRICM, CNRS UMR, Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0122-7349
Claudia CivaiDepartment of Economics, University of Minnesota, Hanson Hall, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6745-2074
Colin G DeYoungDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.

Funding

Neural and genetic mechanisms of cognition in externalizing behavior.R03DA029177 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI DEYOUNG, COLIN G · 2011 to 2011
$227k
NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA029177
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We study the role of attention and working memory in choices where options are presented sequentially rather than simultaneously. We build a model where a costly attention effort is chosen, which can vary over time. Evidence is accumulated proportionally to this effort and the utility of the reward. Crucially, the evidence accumulated decays over time. Optimal attention allocation maximizes expected utility from final choice; the optimal solution takes the decay into account, so attention is preferentially devoted to later times; but convexity of the flow attention cost prevents it from being concentrated near the end. We test this model with a choice experiment where participants observe sequentially two options. In our data the option presented first is, everything else being equal, significantly less likely to be chosen. This recency effect has a natural explanation with appropriate parameter values in our model of leaky evidence accumulation, where the decline is stronger for the option observed first. Analysis of choice, response time and brain imaging data provide support for the model. Working memory plays an essential role. The recency bias is stronger for participants with weaker performance in working memory tasks. Also activity in parietal areas, coding the stored value in working, declines over time as predicted.

Indexed as

AttentionBrainChoice BehaviorMemory, Short-TermRewardHumansReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID37819949
PMCPMC10566694

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.