↓ Skip to main content

Intersection of effort and risk: ethological and neurobiological perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Intersection of effort and risk: ethological and neurobiological perspectives
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike A. Miller, Alexander Thomé, Stephen L. Cowen

Abstract

The physical effort required to seek out and extract a resource is an important consideration for a foraging animal. A second consideration is the variability or risk associated with resource delivery. An intriguing observation from ethological studies is that animals shift their preference from stable to variable food sources under conditions of increased physical effort or falling energetic reserves. Although theoretical models for this effect exist, no exploration into its biological basis has been pursued. Recent advances in understanding the neural basis of effort- and risk-guided decision making suggest that opportunities exist for determining how effort influences risk preference. In this review, we describe the intersection between the neural systems involved in effort- and risk-guided decision making and outline two mechanisms by which effort-induced changes in dopamine release may increase the preference for variable rewards.

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 4 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 70 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 34%
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 21%
Psychology 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 18%
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 29 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,387,227
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,643
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,589
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#117
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 50% 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 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 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 51% of its contemporaries.