↓ Skip to main content

Single-trial dynamics explain magnitude sensitive decision making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Single-trial dynamics explain magnitude sensitive decision making
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12868-018-0457-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angelo Pirrone, Wen Wen, Sheng Li

Abstract

Previous research has reported or predicted, on the basis of theoretical and computational work, magnitude sensitive reaction times. Magnitude sensitivity can arise (1) as a function of single-trial dynamics and/or (2) as recent computational work has suggested, while single-trial dynamics may be magnitude insensitive, magnitude sensitivity could arise as a function of overall reward received which in turn affects the speed at which decision boundaries collapse, allowing faster responses as the overall reward received increases. Here, we review previous theoretical and empirical results and we present new evidence for magnitude sensitivity arising as a function of single-trial dynamics. The result of magnitude sensitive reaction times reported is not compatible with single-trial magnitude insensitive models, such as the statistically optimal drift diffusion model.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 4 27%
Psychology 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 27%
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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,545,423
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#709
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,164
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,252 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 337,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.