↓ Skip to main content

Neural dynamics implement a flexible decision bound with a fixed firing rate for choice: a model-based hypothesis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Neural dynamics implement a flexible decision bound with a fixed firing rate for choice: a model-based hypothesis
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic Standage, Da-Hui Wang, Gunnar Blohm

Abstract

Decisions are faster and less accurate when conditions favor speed, and are slower and more accurate when they favor accuracy. This speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) can be explained by the principles of bounded integration, where noisy evidence is integrated until it reaches a bound. Higher bounds reduce the impact of noise by increasing integration times, supporting higher accuracy (vice versa for speed). These computations are hypothesized to be implemented by feedback inhibition between neural populations selective for the decision alternatives, each of which corresponds to an attractor in the space of network states. Since decision-correlated neural activity typically reaches a fixed rate at the time of commitment to a choice, it has been hypothesized that the neural implementation of the bound is fixed, and that the SAT is supported by a common input to the populations integrating evidence. According to this hypothesis, a stronger common input reduces the difference between a baseline firing rate and a threshold rate for enacting a choice. In simulations of a two-choice decision task, we use a reduced version of a biophysically-based network model (Wong and Wang, 2006) to show that a common input can control the SAT, but that changes to the threshold-baseline difference are epiphenomenal. Rather, the SAT is controlled by changes to network dynamics. A stronger common input decreases the model's effective time constant of integration and changes the shape of the attractor landscape, so the initial state is in a more error-prone position. Thus, a stronger common input reduces decision time and lowers accuracy. The change in dynamics also renders firing rates higher under speed conditions at the time that an ideal observer can make a decision from network activity. The difference between this rate and the baseline rate is actually greater under speed conditions than accuracy conditions, suggesting that the bound is not implemented by firing rates per se.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Computer Science 6 17%
Psychology 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 6%
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 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,423
of 11,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,126
of 273,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#85
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,537 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 273,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.