ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
A cognitive process model captures near-optimal confidence-guided waiting in rats.
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.
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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rational decision-makers invest more time pursuing rewards they are more confident they will eventually receive. A series of studies have therefore used willingness to wait for delayed rewards as a proxy for decision confidence. However, interpretation of waiting behavior is limited because it is unclear how environmental statistics influence optimal waiting, and how sources of internal variability influence subjects' behavior. We trained rats to perform a confidence-guided waiting task, and derived expressions for optimal waiting that make relevant environmental statistics explicit, including travel time incurred traveling from one reward opportunity to another. We found that rats waited longer than fully optimal agents, but that their behavior was closely matched by optimal agents with travel times constrained to match their own. We developed a process model describing the decision to stop waiting as an accumulation to bound process, which allowed us to compare the effects of multiple sources of internal variability on waiting. Surprisingly, although mean wait times grew with confidence, variability did not, inconsistent with scalar invariant timing, and best explained by variability in the stopping bound. Our results describe a tractable process model that can capture the influence of environmental statistics and internal sources of variability on subjects' decision process during confidence-guided waiting.
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.