↓ Skip to main content

Neural Underpinnings of Decision Strategy Selection: A Review and a Theoretical Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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 Underpinnings of Decision Strategy Selection: A Review and a Theoretical Model
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00500
Pubmed ID
Authors

Szymon Wichary, Tomasz Smolen

Abstract

In multi-attribute choice, decision makers use decision strategies to arrive at the final choice. What are the neural mechanisms underlying decision strategy selection? The first goal of this paper is to provide a literature review on the neural underpinnings and cognitive models of decision strategy selection and thus set the stage for a neurocognitive model of this process. The second goal is to outline such a unifying, mechanistic model that can explain the impact of noncognitive factors (e.g., affect, stress) on strategy selection. To this end, we review the evidence for the factors influencing strategy selection, the neural basis of strategy use and the cognitive models of this process. We also present the Bottom-Up Model of Strategy Selection (BUMSS). The model assumes that the use of the rational Weighted Additive strategy and the boundedly rational heuristic Take The Best can be explained by one unifying, neurophysiologically plausible mechanism, based on the interaction of the frontoparietal network, orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex and the brainstem nucleus locus coeruleus. According to BUMSS, there are three processes that form the bottom-up mechanism of decision strategy selection and lead to the final choice: (1) cue weight computation, (2) gain modulation, and (3) weighted additive evaluation of alternatives. We discuss how these processes might be implemented in the brain, and how this knowledge allows us to formulate novel predictions linking strategy use and neural signals.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 34%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 32%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 17%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 9 22%
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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,067
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,741
of 319,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#88
of 139 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 319,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.