↓ Skip to main content

Decoupling speed and accuracy in an urgent decision-making task reveals multiple contributions to their trade-off

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Decoupling speed and accuracy in an urgent decision-making task reveals multiple contributions to their trade-off
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00085
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilio Salinas, Veronica E. Scerra, Christopher K. Hauser, M. Gabriela Costello, Terrence R. Stanford

Abstract

A key goal in the study of decision making is determining how neural networks involved in perception and motor planning interact to generate a given choice, but this is complicated due to the internal trade-off between speed and accuracy, which confounds their individual contributions. Urgent decisions, however, are special: they may range between random and fully informed, depending on the amount of processing time (or stimulus viewing time) available in each trial, but regardless, movement preparation always starts early on. As a consequence, under time pressure it is possible to produce a psychophysical curve that characterizes perceptual performance independently of reaction time, and this, in turn, makes it possible to pinpoint how perceptual information (which requires sensory input) modulates motor planning (which does not) to guide a choice. Here we review experiments in which, on the basis of this approach, the origin of the speed-accuracy trade-off becomes particularly transparent. Psychophysical, neurophysiological, and modeling results in the "compelled-saccade" task indicate that, during urgent decision making, perceptual information-if and whenever it becomes available-accelerates or decelerates competing motor plans that are already ongoing. This interaction affects both the reaction time and the probability of success in any given trial. In two experiments with reward asymmetries, we find that speed and accuracy can be traded in different amounts and for different reasons, depending on how the particular task contingencies affect specific neural mechanisms related to perception and motor planning. Therefore, from the vantage point of urgent decisions, the speed-accuracy trade-off is not a unique phenomenon tied to a single underlying mechanism, but rather a typical outcome of many possible combinations of internal adjustments within sensory-motor neural circuits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 116 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 26%
Researcher 28 23%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 28%
Neuroscience 30 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 12%
Engineering 9 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 18 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 May 2014.
All research outputs
#6,212,396
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,131
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,008
of 241,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#22
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 241,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.