↓ Skip to main content

Making Decisions with Unknown Sensory Reliability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
Making Decisions with Unknown Sensory Reliability
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Deneve

Abstract

To make fast and accurate behavioral choices, we need to integrate noisy sensory input, take prior knowledge into account, and adjust our decision criteria. It was shown previously that in two-alternative-forced-choice tasks, optimal decision making can be formalized in the framework of a sequential probability ratio test and is then equivalent to a diffusion model. However, this analogy hides a "chicken and egg" problem: to know how quickly we should integrate the sensory input and set the optimal decision threshold, the reliability of the sensory observations must be known in advance. Most of the time, we cannot know this reliability without first observing the decision outcome. We consider here a Bayesian decision model that simultaneously infers the probability of two different choices and at the same time estimates the reliability of the sensory information on which this choice is based. We show that this can be achieved within a single trial, based on the noisy responses of sensory spiking neurons. The resulting model is a non-linear diffusion to bound where the weight of the sensory inputs and the decision threshold are both dynamically changing over time. In difficult decision trials, early sensory inputs have a stronger impact on the decision, and the threshold collapses such that choices are made faster but with low accuracy. The reverse is true in easy trials: the sensory weight and the threshold increase over time, leading to slower decisions but at much higher accuracy. In contrast to standard diffusion models, adaptive sensory weights construct an accurate representation for the probability of each choice. This information can then be combined appropriately with other unreliable cues, such as priors. We show that this model can account for recent findings in a motion discrimination task, and can be implemented in a neural architecture using fast Hebbian learning.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 5%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Netherlands 3 2%
France 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 160 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 31%
Researcher 46 25%
Student > Master 20 11%
Professor 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 19%
Neuroscience 32 17%
Engineering 12 6%
Computer Science 8 4%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 20 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,170,530
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,401
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,882
of 250,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#90
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 250,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.