↓ Skip to main content

A Leaky-Integrator Model as a Control Mechanism Underlying Flexible Decision Making during Task Switching

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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.
Title
A Leaky-Integrator Model as a Control Mechanism Underlying Flexible Decision Making during Task Switching
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0059670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akinori Mitani, Ryo Sasaki, Masafumi Oizumi, Takanori Uka

Abstract

The ability to switch between tasks is critical for animals to behave according to context. Although the association between the prefrontal cortex and task switching has been well documented, the ultimate modulation of sensory-motor associations has yet to be determined. Here, we modeled the results of a previous study showing that task switching can be accomplished by communication from distinct populations of sensory neurons. We proposed a leaky-integrator model where relevant and irrelevant information were stored separately in two integrators and task switching was achieved by leaking information from the irrelevant integrator. The model successfully explained both the behavioral and neuronal data. Additionally, the leaky-integrator model showed better performance than an alternative model, where irrelevant information was discarded by decreasing the weight on irrelevant information, when animals initially failed to commit to a task. Overall, we propose that flexible switching is, in part, achieved by actively controlling the amount of leak of relevant and irrelevant information.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 5%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 21%
Professor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Engineering 6 14%
Psychology 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Other 5 12%
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 07 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,102,711
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#115,330
of 193,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,015
of 197,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,934
of 5,434 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 197,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,434 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.