↓ Skip to main content

Time representation in reinforcement learning models of the basal ganglia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Time representation in reinforcement learning models of the basal ganglia
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel J. Gershman, Ahmed A. Moustafa, Elliot A. Ludvig

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) models have been influential in understanding many aspects of basal ganglia function, from reward prediction to action selection. Time plays an important role in these models, but there is still no theoretical consensus about what kind of time representation is used by the basal ganglia. We review several theoretical accounts and their supporting evidence. We then discuss the relationship between RL models and the timing mechanisms that have been attributed to the basal ganglia. We hypothesize that a single computational system may underlie both RL and interval timing-the perception of duration in the range of seconds to hours. This hypothesis, which extends earlier models by incorporating a time-sensitive action selection mechanism, may have important implications for understanding disorders like Parkinson's disease in which both decision making and timing are impaired.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Portugal 2 1%
India 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 159 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 31%
Researcher 33 19%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Professor 9 5%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 23%
Neuroscience 38 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 16%
Engineering 11 6%
Computer Science 10 6%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 34 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,891,407
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#484
of 1,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,677
of 305,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 305,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.