↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Evidence Bounds on Decision-Making: Theoretical and Empirical Developments

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
The Effects of Evidence Bounds on Decision-Making: Theoretical and Empirical Developments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiaxiang Zhang

Abstract

Converging findings from behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies suggest an integration-to-boundary mechanism governing decision formation and choice selection. This mechanism is supported by sequential sampling models of choice decisions, which can implement statistically optimal decision strategies for selecting between multiple alternative options on the basis of sensory evidence. This review focuses on recent developments in understanding the evidence boundary, an important component of decision-making raised by experimental findings and models. The article starts by reviewing the neurobiology of perceptual decisions and several influential sequential sampling models, in particular the drift-diffusion model, the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model and the leaky-competing-accumulator model. In the second part, the article examines how the boundary may affect a model's dynamics and performance and to what extent it may improve a model's fits to experimental data. In the third part, the article examines recent findings that support the presence and site of boundaries in the brain. The article considers two questions: (1) whether the boundary is a spontaneous property of neural integrators, or is controlled by dedicated neural circuits; (2) if the boundary is variable, what could be the driving factors behind boundary changes? The review brings together studies using different experimental methods in seeking answers to these questions, highlights psychological and physiological factors that may be associated with the boundary and its changes, and further considers the evidence boundary as a generic mechanism to guide complex behavior.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
Netherlands 3 3%
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 90 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 27%
Researcher 26 25%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 3 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 38%
Neuroscience 24 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Computer Science 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 7 7%
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 16 October 2012.
All research outputs
#15,249,959
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,438
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,175
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#321
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.