↓ Skip to main content

Minimalist Social-Affective Value for Use in Joint Action: A Neural-Computational Hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Minimalist Social-Affective Value for Use in Joint Action: A Neural-Computational Hypothesis
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Lowe, Alexander Almér, Gustaf Lindblad, Pierre Gander, John Michael, Cordula Vesper

Abstract

Joint Action is typically described as social interaction that requires coordination among two or more co-actors in order to achieve a common goal. In this article, we put forward a hypothesis for the existence of a neural-computational mechanism of affective valuation that may be critically exploited in Joint Action. Such a mechanism would serve to facilitate coordination between co-actors permitting a reduction of required information. Our hypothesized affective mechanism provides a value function based implementation of Associative Two-Process (ATP) theory that entails the classification of external stimuli according to outcome expectancies. This approach has been used to describe animal and human action that concerns differential outcome expectancies. Until now it has not been applied to social interaction. We describe our Affective ATP model as applied to social learning consistent with an "extended common currency" perspective in the social neuroscience literature. We contrast this to an alternative mechanism that provides an example implementation of the so-called social-specific value perspective. In brief, our Social-Affective ATP mechanism builds upon established formalisms for reinforcement learning (temporal difference learning models) nuanced to accommodate expectations (consistent with ATP theory) and extended to integrate non-social and social cues for use in Joint Action.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 30%
Computer Science 4 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
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 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,116,909
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#995
of 1,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,117
of 348,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#26
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 348,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.