↓ Skip to main content

How Costs Influence Decision Values for Mixed Outcomes

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
How Costs Influence Decision Values for Mixed Outcomes
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Talmi, Alex Pine

Abstract

The things that we hold dearest often require a sacrifice, as epitomized in the maxim "no pain, no gain." But how is the subjective value of outcomes established when they consist of mixtures of costs and benefits? We describe theoretical models for the integration of costs and benefits into a single value, drawing on both the economic and the empirical literatures, with the goal of rendering them accessible to the neuroscience community. We propose two key assays that go beyond goodness of fit for deciding between the dominant additive model and four varieties of interactive models. First, how they model decisions between costs when reward is not on offer; and second, whether they predict changes in reward sensitivity when costs are added to outcomes, and in what direction. We provide a selective review of relevant neurobiological work from a computational perspective, focusing on those studies that illuminate the underlying valuation mechanisms. Cognitive neuroscience has great potential to decide which of the theoretical models is actually employed by our brains, but empirical work has yet to fully embrace this challenge. We hope that future research improves our understanding of how our brain decides whether mixed outcomes are worthwhile.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 83 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 43%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 42%
Neuroscience 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 12 14%
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 31 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,067
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,462
of 250,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#106
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.