↓ Skip to main content

Changes of mind in decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

2 blogs
6 tweeters
1 research highlight platform


329 Dimensions

Readers on

1047 Mendeley
16 CiteULike
3 Connotea
Changes of mind in decision-making
Published in
Nature, August 2009
DOI 10.1038/nature08275
Pubmed ID

Arbora Resulaj, Roozbeh Kiani, Daniel M. Wolpert, Michael N. Shadlen


A decision is a commitment to a proposition or plan of action based on evidence and the expected costs and benefits associated with the outcome. Progress in a variety of fields has led to a quantitative understanding of the mechanisms that evaluate evidence and reach a decision. Several formalisms propose that a representation of noisy evidence is evaluated against a criterion to produce a decision. Without additional evidence, however, these formalisms fail to explain why a decision-maker would change their mind. Here we extend a model, developed to account for both the timing and the accuracy of the initial decision, to explain subsequent changes of mind. Subjects made decisions about a noisy visual stimulus, which they indicated by moving a handle. Although they received no additional information after initiating their movement, their hand trajectories betrayed a change of mind in some trials. We propose that noisy evidence is accumulated over time until it reaches a criterion level, or bound, which determines the initial decision, and that the brain exploits information that is in the processing pipeline when the initial decision is made to subsequently either reverse or reaffirm the initial decision. The model explains both the frequency of changes of mind as well as their dependence on both task difficulty and whether the initial decision was accurate or erroneous. The theoretical and experimental findings advance the understanding of decision-making to the highly flexible and cognitive acts of vacillation and self-correction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,047 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 38 4%
Germany 24 2%
United Kingdom 15 1%
France 9 <1%
Belgium 6 <1%
Japan 6 <1%
Italy 5 <1%
Switzerland 5 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
Other 28 3%
Unknown 906 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 308 29%
Researcher 276 26%
Student > Master 105 10%
Student > Bachelor 67 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 65 6%
Other 178 17%
Unknown 48 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 302 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 239 23%
Neuroscience 150 14%
Computer Science 54 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 5%
Other 163 16%
Unknown 85 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 11 November 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,763,586 outputs
Outputs from Nature
of 70,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 210,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
of 1,050 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,763,586 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 70,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 210,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,050 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.