↓ Skip to main content

A simple solution for model comparison in bold imaging: the special case of reward prediction error and reward outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
A simple solution for model comparison in bold imaging: the special case of reward prediction error and reward outcomes
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Burak Erdeniz, Tim Rohe, John Done, Rachael D. Seidler

Abstract

Conventional neuroimaging techniques provide information about condition-related changes of the BOLD (blood-oxygen-level dependent) signal, indicating only where and when the underlying cognitive processes occur. Recently, with the help of a new approach called "model-based" functional neuroimaging (fMRI), researchers are able to visualize changes in the internal variables of a time varying learning process, such as the reward prediction error or the predicted reward value of a conditional stimulus. However, despite being extremely beneficial to the imaging community in understanding the neural correlates of decision variables, a model-based approach to brain imaging data is also methodologically challenging due to the multicollinearity problem in statistical analysis. There are multiple sources of multicollinearity in functional neuroimaging including investigations of closely related variables and/or experimental designs that do not account for this. The source of multicollinearity discussed in this paper occurs due to correlation between different subjective variables that are calculated very close in time. Here, we review methodological approaches to analyzing such data by discussing the special case of separating the reward prediction error signal from reward outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 28%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 20 30%
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 08 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,458
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,822
of 289,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#187
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 289,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.