↓ Skip to main content

Is There Neural Evidence for an Evidence Accumulation Process in Memory Decisions?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Is There Neural Evidence for an Evidence Accumulation Process in Memory Decisions?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke K. van Vugt, Marijke A. Beulen, Niels A. Taatgen

Abstract

Models of evidence accumulation have been very successful at describing human decision making behavior. Recent years have also seen the first reports of neural correlates of this accumulation process. However, these studies have mostly focused on perceptual decision making tasks, ignoring the role of additional cognitive processes like memory retrieval that are crucial in real-world decisions. In this study, we tried to find a neural signature of evidence accumulation during a recognition memory task. To do this, we applied a method we have successfully used to localize evidence accumulation in scalp EEG during a perceptual decision making task. This time, however, we applied it to intracranial EEG recordings, which provide a much higher spatial resolution. We identified several brain areas where activity ramps up over time, but these neural patterns do not appear to be modulated by behavioral variables such as the amount of available evidence or response time. This casts doubt on the idea of evidence accumulation as a general decision-making mechanism underlying different types of decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 29%
Neuroscience 16 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 13 19%
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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#12,655,165
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,431
of 7,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,806
of 299,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#78
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 299,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 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 51% of its contemporaries.