Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38352612›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024

Incorporation of a cost of deliberation time in perceptual decision making.

Shinichiro Kira, Ariel Zylberberg, Michael N Shadlen

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shinichiro KiraDepartment of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0056-5928
Ariel ZylberbergZuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2572-4748
Michael N ShadlenZuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2002-2210

Funding

Computational and circuit mechanisms of decision makingR01NS113113 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SHADLEN, MICHAEL NEIL · 2019 to 2023
$2.2M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS113113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many decisions benefit from the accumulation of evidence obtained sequentially over time. In such circumstances, the decision maker must balance speed against accuracy, and the nature of this tradeoff mediates competing desiderata and costs, especially those associated with the passage of time. A neural mechanism to achieve this balance is to accumulate evidence in suitable units and to terminate the deliberation when enough evidence has accrued. To accommodate time costs, it has been hypothesized that the criterion to terminate a decision may become lax as a function of time. Here we tested this hypothesis by manipulating the cost of time in a perceptual choice-reaction time task. Participants discriminated the direction of motion in a dynamic random-dot display, which varied in difficulty across trials. After each trial, they received feedback in the form of points based on whether they made a correct or erroneous choice. They were instructed to maximize their points per unit of time. Unbeknownst to the participants, halfway through the experiment, we increased the time pressure by canceling a small fraction of trials if they had not made a decision by a provisional deadline. Although the manipulation canceled less than 5% of trials, it induced the participants to make faster decisions while lowering their decision accuracy. The pattern of choices and reaction times were explained by bounded drift-diffusion. In all phases of the experiment, stopping bounds were found to decline as a function of time, consistent with the optimal solution, and this decline was exaggerated in response to the time-cost manipulation.

Identifiers

PMID38352612
PMCPMC10862799

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.