↓ Skip to main content

Neural Signatures of Rational and Heuristic Choice Strategies: A Single Trial ERP Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Neural Signatures of Rational and Heuristic Choice Strategies: A Single Trial ERP Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00401
Pubmed ID
Authors

Szymon Wichary, Mikołaj Magnuski, Tomasz Oleksy, Aneta Brzezicka

Abstract

In multi-attribute choice, people use heuristics to simplify decision problems. We studied the use of heuristic and rational strategies and their electrophysiological correlates. Since previous work linked the P3 ERP component to attention and decision making, we were interested whether the amplitude of this component is associated with decision strategy use. To this end, we recorded EEG when participants performed a two-alternative choice task, where they could acquire decision cues in a sequential manner and use them to make choices. We classified participants' choices as consistent with a rational Weighted Additive rule (WADD) or a simple heuristic Take The Best (TTB). Participants differed in their preference for WADD and TTB. Using a permutation-based single trial approach, we analyzed EEG responses to consecutive decision cues and their relation to the individual strategy preference. The preference for WADD over TTB was associated with overall higher signal amplitudes to decision cues in the P3 time window. Moreover, the preference for WADD was associated with similar P3 amplitudes to consecutive cues, whereas the preference for TTB was associated with substantial decreases in P3 amplitudes to consecutive cues. We also found that the preference for TTB was associated with enhanced N1 component to cues that discriminated decision alternatives, suggesting very early attention allocation to such cues by TTB users. Our results suggest that preference for either WADD or TTB has an early neural signature reflecting differences in attentional weighting of decision cues. In light of recent findings and hypotheses regarding P3, we interpret these results as indicating the involvement of catecholamine arousal systems in shaping predecisional information processing and strategy selection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 23%
Computer Science 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Decision Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 19 49%
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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#19,059,638
of 24,271,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,913
of 7,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,699
of 322,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#117
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,271,113 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 7,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 322,419 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 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.