↓ Skip to main content

Pure correlates of exploration and exploitation in the human brain

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
Title
Pure correlates of exploration and exploitation in the human brain
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13415-017-0556-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tommy C. Blanchard, Samuel J. Gershman

Abstract

Balancing exploration and exploitation is a fundamental problem in reinforcement learning. Previous neuroimaging studies of the exploration-exploitation dilemma could not completely disentangle these two processes, making it difficult to unambiguously identify their neural signatures. We overcome this problem using a task in which subjects can either observe (pure exploration) or bet (pure exploitation). Insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex showed significantly greater activity on observe trials compared to bet trials, suggesting that these regions play a role in driving exploration. A model-based analysis of task performance suggested that subjects chose to observe until a critical evidence threshold was reached. We observed a neural signature of this evidence accumulation process in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. These findings support theories positing an important role for anterior cingulate cortex in exploration, while also providing a new perspective on the roles of insula and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 35%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 19 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 40 28%
Psychology 38 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Engineering 6 4%
Decision Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 34 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,502,367
of 25,477,125 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#71
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,345
of 446,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,477,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.