↓ Skip to main content

Decision theory, motor planning, and visual memory: deciding where to reach when memory errors are costly

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Decision theory, motor planning, and visual memory: deciding where to reach when memory errors are costly
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00221-016-4553-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel A. Lerch, Chris R. Sims

Abstract

Limitations in visual working memory (VWM) have been extensively studied in psychophysical tasks, but not well understood in terms of how these memory limits translate to performance in more natural domains. For example, in reaching to grasp an object based on a spatial memory representation, overshooting the intended target may be more costly than undershooting, such as when reaching for a cup of hot coffee. The current body of literature lacks a detailed account of how the costs or consequences of memory error influence what we encode in visual memory and how we act on the basis of remembered information. Here, we study how externally imposed monetary costs influence behavior in a motor decision task that involves reach planning based on recalled information from VWM. We approach this from a decision theoretic perspective, viewing decisions of where to aim in relation to the utility of their outcomes given the uncertainty of memory representations. Our results indicate that subjects accounted for the uncertainty in their visual memory, showing a significant difference in their reach planning when monetary costs were imposed for memory errors. However, our findings indicate that subjects memory representations per se were not biased by the imposed costs, but rather subjects adopted a near-optimal post-mnemonic decision strategy in their motor planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 28 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 39%
Neuroscience 5 16%
Computer Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,834,028
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,931
of 3,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,016
of 396,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#35
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 396,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.