Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38773993›Full record

ArticleComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2021

A Competition of Critics in Human Decision-Making.

Enkhzaya Enkhtaivan, Joel Nishimura, Cheng Ly, Amy L Cochran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Having multiple selves helps learning agents explore and adapt in complex changing worlds.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

4 authors.

Enkhzaya EnkhtaivanDepartment of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2814-1561
Joel NishimuraSchool of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1910-5131
Cheng LyDepartment of Statistical Sciences and Operations Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3279-8240
Amy L CochranDepartment of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6024-796X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent experiments and theories of human decision-making suggest positive and negative errors are processed and encoded differently by serotonin and dopamine, with serotonin possibly serving to oppose dopamine and protect against risky decisions. We introduce a temporal difference (TD) model of human decision-making to account for these features. Our model involves two critics, an optimistic learning system and a pessimistic learning system, whose predictions are integrated in time to control how potential decisions compete to be selected. Our model predicts that human decision-making can be decomposed along two dimensions: the degree to which the individual is sensitive to (1) risk and (2) uncertainty. In addition, we demonstrate that the model can learn about the mean and standard deviation of rewards, and provide information about reaction time despite not modeling these variables directly. Lastly, we simulate a recent experiment to show how updates of the two learning systems could relate to dopamine and serotonin transients, thereby providing a mathematical formalism to serotonin's hypothesized role as an opponent to dopamine. This new model should be useful for future experiments on human decision-making.

Indexed as

Computational ModelDecision-MakingReaction TimeReward LearningRiskSerotonin

Identifiers

PMID38773993
PMCPMC11104313

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.