↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy and response-time distributions for decision-making: linear perfect integrators versus nonlinear attractor-based neural circuits

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Computational Neuroscience, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Accuracy and response-time distributions for decision-making: linear perfect integrators versus nonlinear attractor-based neural circuits
Published in
Journal of Computational Neuroscience, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10827-013-0452-x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Animals choose actions based on imperfect, ambiguous data. "Noise" inherent in neural processing adds further variability to this already-noisy input signal. Mathematical analysis has suggested that the optimal apparatus (in terms of the speed/accuracy trade-off) for reaching decisions about such noisy inputs is perfect accumulation of the inputs by a temporal integrator. Thus, most highly cited models of neural circuitry underlying decision-making have been instantiations of a perfect integrator. Here, in accordance with a growing mathematical and empirical literature, we describe circumstances in which perfect integration is rendered suboptimal. In particular we highlight the impact of three biological constraints: (1) significant noise arising within the decision-making circuitry itself; (2) bounding of integration by maximal neural firing rates; and (3) time limitations on making a decision. Under conditions (1) and (2), an attractor system with stable attractor states can easily best an integrator when accuracy is more important than speed. Moreover, under conditions in which such stable attractor networks do not best the perfect integrator, a system with unstable initial states can do so if readout of the system's final state is imperfect. Ubiquitously, an attractor system with a nonselective time-dependent input current is both more accurate and more robust to imprecise tuning of parameters than an integrator with such input. Given that neural responses that switch stochastically between discrete states can "masquerade" as integration in single-neuron and trial-averaged data, our results suggest that such networks should be considered as plausible alternatives to the integrator model.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 5 6%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 73 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 33%
Researcher 22 28%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 27%
Neuroscience 14 18%
Psychology 13 16%
Computer Science 3 4%
Physics and Astronomy 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 May 2013.
All research outputs
#18,337,420
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Computational Neuroscience
#223
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,141
of 195,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Computational Neuroscience
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 195,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.