Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37878723›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Predictions and rewards affect decision-making but not subjective experience.

Nicolás Sánchez-Fuenzalida, Simon van Gaal, Stephen M Fleming, Julia M Haaf, Johannes J Fahrenfort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effects of Expectation, Attention, and NMDA Receptor Blockade on Feedforward and Feedback Processing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Predictions and rewards affect decision-making but not subjective experience.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Nicolás Sánchez-FuenzalidaDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001NK, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0876-2283
Simon van GaalDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001NK, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6628-4534
Stephen M FlemingWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0233-4891
Julia M HaafDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001NK, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5122-706X
Johannes J FahrenfortDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001NK, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9025-3436

Funding

European Research Council 715605European Research Council ERC-2016-STG_715605Wellcome Trust 206648Wellcome Trust 206648/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To survive, organisms constantly make decisions to avoid danger and maximize rewards in information-rich environments. As a result, decisions about sensory input are not only driven by sensory information but also by other factors, such as the expected rewards of a decision (known as the payoff matrix) or by information about temporal regularities in the environment (known as cognitive priors or predictions). However, it is unknown to what extent these different types of information affect subjective experience or whether they merely result in nonperceptual response criterion shifts. To investigate this question, we used three carefully matched manipulations that typically result in behavioral shifts in decision criteria: a visual illusion (Müller-Lyer condition), a punishment scheme (payoff condition), and a change in the ratio of relevant stimuli (base rate condition). To gauge shifts in subjective experience, we introduce a task in which participants not only make decisions about what they have just seen but are also asked to reproduce their experience of a target stimulus. Using Bayesian ordinal modeling, we show that each of these three manipulations affects the decision criterion as intended but that the visual illusion uniquely affects sensory experience as measured by reproduction. In a series of follow-up experiments, we use computational modeling to show that although the visual illusion results in a distinct drift-diffusion (DDM) parameter profile relative to nonsensory manipulations, reliance on DDM parameter estimates alone is not sufficient to ascertain whether a given manipulation is perceptual or nonperceptual.

Indexed as

Decision MakingIllusionsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansRewardconsciousnessdecision biasperceptual decision-makingpredictionsrewards

Identifiers

PMID37878723
PMCPMC10622870

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.