ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Multi-attribute decision-making in macaques relies on direct attribute comparisons.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In value-based decisions, there are frequently multiple attributes, such as cost, quality, or quantity, that contribute to the overall goodness of an option. Since one option may not be better in all attributes at once, the decision process should include a means of weighing relevant attributes. Most decision-making models solve this problem by computing an integrated value, or utility, for each option from a weighted combination of attributes. However, behavioral anomalies in decision-making, such as context effects, indicate that other attribute-specific computations might be taking place. Here, we tested whether rhesus macaques show evidence of attribute-specific processing in a value-based decision-making task. Monkeys made a series of decisions involving choice options comprising a sweetness and probability attribute. Each attribute was represented by a separate bar with one of two mappings between bar size and the magnitude of the attribute (i.e., bigger=better or bigger=worse). We found that translating across different mappings produced selective impairments in decision-making. When like attributes differed, monkeys were prevented from easily making direct attribute comparisons, and choices were less accurate and preferences were more variable. This was not the case when mappings of unalike attributes within the same option were different. Likewise, gaze patterns favored transitions between like attributes over transitions between unalike attributes of the same option, so that like attributes were sampled sequentially to support within-attribute comparisons. Together, these data demonstrate that value-based decisions rely, at least in part, on directly comparing like attributes of multi-attribute options. Significance Statement: Value-based decision-making is a cognitive function impacted by a number of clinical conditions, including substance use disorder and mood disorders. Understanding the neural mechanisms, including online processing steps involved in decision formation, will provide critical insights into decision-making deficits characteristic of human psychiatric disorders. Using rhesus monkeys as a model species capable of complex decision-making, this study shows that decisions involve a process of comparing like features, or attributes, of multi-attribute options. This is contrary to popular models of decision-making in which attributes are first combined into an overall value, or utility, to make a choice. Therefore, these results serve as an important foundation for establishing a more complete understanding of the neural mechanisms involved in forming complex decisions.
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.