↓ Skip to main content

Investigating decision rules with a new experimental design: the EXACT paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Investigating decision rules with a new experimental design: the EXACT paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00288
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerio Biscione, Christopher M. Harris

Abstract

In the decision-making field, it is important to distinguish between the perceptual process (how information is collected) and the decision rule (the strategy governing decision-making). We propose a new paradigm, called EXogenous ACcumulation Task (EXACT) to disentangle these two components. The paradigm consists of showing a horizontal gauge that represents the probability of receiving a reward at time t and increases with time. The participant is asked to press a button when they want to request a reward. Thus, the perceptual mechanism is hard-coded and does not need to be inferred from the data. Based on this paradigm, we compared four decision rules (Bayes Risk, Reward Rate, Reward/Accuracy, and Modified Reward Rate) and found that participants appeared to behave according to the Modified Reward Rate. We propose a new way of analysing the data by using the accuracy of responses, which can only be inferred in classic RT tasks. Our analysis suggests that several experimental findings such as RT distribution and its relationship with experimental conditions, usually deemed to be the result of a rise-to-threshold process, may be simply explained by the effect of the decision rule employed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 43%
Neuroscience 2 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#12,623,269
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,313
of 3,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,435
of 285,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#36
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 285,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 60% of its contemporaries.