Whereas many laboratory-studied decisions involve a highly trained animal identifying an ambiguous stimulus, many naturalistic decisions do not. Consumption decisions, for instance, involve determining whether to eject or consume an already identified stimulus in the mouth and are decisions that can be made without training. By standard analyses, rodent cortical single-neuron taste responses come to predict such consumption decisions across the 500 ms preceding the consumption or rejection itself; decision-related firing emerges well after stimulus identification. Analyzing single-trial ensemble activity using hidden Markov models, we show these decision-related cortical responses to be part of a reliable sequence of states (each defined by the firing rates within the ensemble) separated by brief state-to-state transitions, the latencies of which vary widely between trials. When we aligned data to the onset of the (late-appearing) state that dominates during the time period in which single-neuron firing is correlated to taste palatability, the apparent ramp in stimulus-aligned choice-related firing was shown to be a much more precipitous coherent jump. This jump in choice-related firing resembled a step function more than it did the output of a standard (ramping) decision-making model, and provided a robust prediction of decision latency in single trials. Together, these results demonstrate that activity related to naturalistic consumption decisions emerges nearly instantaneously in cortical ensembles.
This paper provides a description of how the brain makes evaluative decisions. The majority of work on the neurobiology of decision making deals with "what is it?" decisions; out of this work has emerged a model whereby neurons accumulate information about the stimulus in the form of slowly increasing firing rates and reach a decision when those firing rates reach a threshold. Here, we study a different kind of more naturalistic decision-a decision to evaluate "what shall I do with it?" after the identity of a taste in the mouth has been identified-and show that this decision is not made through the gradual increasing of stimulus-related firing, but rather that this decision appears to be made in a sudden moment of "insight."
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#11,469,560
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#12,435
of 23,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,842
of 449,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#176
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 449,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
