↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
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
A note on the analysis of two-stage task results: How changes in task structure affect what model-free and model-based strategies predict about the effects of reward and transition on the stay probability
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0195328
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Many studies that aim to detect model-free and model-based influences on behavior employ two-stage behavioral tasks of the type pioneered by Daw and colleagues in 2011. Such studies commonly modify existing two-stage decision paradigms in order to better address a given hypothesis, which is an important means of scientific progress. It is, however, critical to fully appreciate the impact of any modified or novel experimental design features on the expected results. Here, we use two concrete examples to demonstrate that relatively small changes in the two-stage task design can substantially change the pattern of actions taken by model-free and model-based agents as a function of the reward outcomes and transitions on previous trials. In the first, we show that, under specific conditions, purely model-free agents will produce the reward by transition interactions typically thought to characterize model-based behavior on a two-stage task. The second example shows that model-based agents' behavior is driven by a main effect of transition-type in addition to the canonical reward by transition interaction whenever the reward probabilities of the final states do not sum to one. Together, these examples emphasize the task-dependence of model-free and model-based behavior and highlight the benefits of using computer simulations to determine what pattern of results to expect from both model-free and model-based agents performing a given two-stage decision task in order to design choice paradigms and analysis strategies best suited to the current question.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 26%
Psychology 14 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Decision Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 23 33%
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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#17,938,849
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#149,048
of 196,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,059
of 329,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,570
of 3,473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 329,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.