↓ Skip to main content

Different Varieties of Uncertainty in Human Decision-Making

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
265 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
Different Varieties of Uncertainty in Human Decision-Making
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00085
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy R. Bland, Alexandre Schaefer

Abstract

The study of uncertainty in decision-making is receiving greater attention in the fields of cognitive and computational neuroscience. Several lines of evidence are beginning to elucidate different variants of uncertainty. Particularly, risk, ambiguity, and expected and unexpected forms of uncertainty are well articulated in the literature. In this article we review both empirical and theoretical evidence arguing for the potential distinction between three forms of uncertainty; expected uncertainty, unexpected uncertainty, and volatility. Particular attention will be devoted to exploring the distinction between unexpected uncertainty and volatility which has been less appreciated in the literature. This includes evidence mainly from neuroimaging, neuromodulation, and electrophysiological studies. We further address the possible differentiation of cognitive control mechanisms used to deal with these forms of uncertainty. Finally, we explore whether the dual modes of control theory provides a theoretical framework for understanding the distinction between unexpected uncertainty and volatility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Germany 3 1%
France 3 1%
Italy 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 242 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 26%
Student > Master 38 14%
Researcher 32 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 44 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 94 35%
Neuroscience 30 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 7%
Computer Science 11 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 54 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 24 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,216,998
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#533
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,504
of 250,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 250,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.