ArticleeLife2025
Normative evidence weighing and accumulation in correlated environments.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human decision-makers terminate evidence accumulation using flexible decision rules.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The brain forms certain deliberative decisions following normative principles related to how sensory observations are weighed and accumulated over time. Previously we showed that these principles can account for how people adapt their decisions to the temporal dynamics of the observations (Glaze et al., 2015). Here, we show that this adaptability extends to accounting for correlations in the observations, which can have a dramatic impact on the weight of evidence provided by those observations. We tested online human participants on a novel visual-discrimination task with pairwise-correlated observations. With minimal training, the participants adapted to uncued, trial-by-trial changes in the correlations and produced decisions based on an approximately normative weighing and accumulation of evidence. The results highlight the robustness of our brain's ability to process sensory observations with respect to not just their physical features but also the weight of evidence they provide for a given decision.
Indexed as
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.