↓ Skip to main content

Human Decision Making Based on Variations in Internal Noise: An EEG Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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.
Title
Human Decision Making Based on Variations in Internal Noise: An EEG Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0068928
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sygal Amitay, Jeanne Guiraud, Ediz Sohoglu, Oliver Zobay, Barrie A. Edmonds, Yu-Xuan Zhang, David R. Moore

Abstract

Perceptual decision making is prone to errors, especially near threshold. Physiological, behavioural and modeling studies suggest this is due to the intrinsic or 'internal' noise in neural systems, which derives from a mixture of bottom-up and top-down sources. We show here that internal noise can form the basis of perceptual decision making when the external signal lacks the required information for the decision. We recorded electroencephalographic (EEG) activity in listeners attempting to discriminate between identical tones. Since the acoustic signal was constant, bottom-up and top-down influences were under experimental control. We found that early cortical responses to the identical stimuli varied in global field power and topography according to the perceptual decision made, and activity preceding stimulus presentation could predict both later activity and behavioural decision. Our results suggest that activity variations induced by internal noise of both sensory and cognitive origin are sufficient to drive discrimination judgments.

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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 7%
Switzerland 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 77 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 34%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 28%
Neuroscience 12 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Engineering 7 8%
Linguistics 3 3%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 15 17%
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 16 July 2013.
All research outputs
#13,386,515
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,724
of 193,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,628
of 194,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,590
of 4,799 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,923 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 194,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,799 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.