↓ Skip to main content

Distinction between Externally vs. Internally Guided Decision-Making: Operational Differences, Meta-Analytical Comparisons and Their Theoretical Implications

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 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
Distinction between Externally vs. Internally Guided Decision-Making: Operational Differences, Meta-Analytical Comparisons and Their Theoretical Implications
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Nakao, Hideki Ohira, Georg Northoff

Abstract

Most experimental studies of decision-making have specifically examined situations in which a single less-predictable correct answer exists (externally guided decision-making under uncertainty). Along with such externally guided decision-making, there are instances of decision-making in which no correct answer based on external circumstances is available for the subject (internally guided decision-making). Such decisions are usually made in the context of moral decision-making as well as in preference judgment, where the answer depends on the subject's own, i.e., internal, preferences rather than on external, i.e., circumstantial, criteria. The neuronal and psychological mechanisms that allow guidance of decisions based on more internally oriented criteria in the absence of external ones remain unclear. This study was undertaken to compare decision-making of these two kinds empirically and theoretically. First, we reviewed studies of decision-making to clarify experimental-operational differences between externally guided and internally guided decision-making. Second, using multi-level kernel density analysis, a whole-brain-based quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies was performed. Our meta-analysis revealed that the neural network used predominantly for internally guided decision-making differs from that for externally guided decision-making under uncertainty. This result suggests that studying only externally guided decision-making under uncertainty is insufficient to account for decision-making processes in the brain. Finally, based on the review and results of the meta-analysis, we discuss the differences and relations between decision-making of these two types in terms of their operational, neuronal, and theoretical characteristics.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
Japan 3 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 184 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 20%
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 22 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 31%
Neuroscience 26 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 35 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,047,002
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,573
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,827
of 250,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#58
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 60% 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 250,087 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 61% of its contemporaries.