↓ Skip to main content

Deliberation and Procedural Automation on a Two-Step Task for Rats

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Deliberation and Procedural Automation on a Two-Step Task for Rats
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2018.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan M. Hasz, A. David Redish

Abstract

Current theories suggest that decision-making arises from multiple, competing action-selection systems. Rodent studies dissociate deliberation and procedural behavior, and find a transition from procedural to deliberative behavior with experience. However, it remains unknown how this transition from deliberative to procedural control evolves within single trials, or within blocks of repeated choices. We adapted for rats a two-step task which has been used to dissociate model-based from model-free decisions in humans. We found that a mixture of model-based and model-free algorithms was more likely to explain rat choice strategies on the task than either model-based or model-free algorithms alone. This task contained two choices per trial, which provides a more complex and non-discrete per-trial choice structure. This task structure enabled us to evaluate how deliberative and procedural behavior evolved within-trial and within blocks of repeated choice sequences. We found that vicarious trial and error (VTE), a behavioral correlate of deliberation in rodents, was correlated between the two choice points on a given lap. We also found that behavioral stereotypy, a correlate of procedural automation, increased with the number of repeated choices. While VTE at the first choice point increased with the number of repeated choices, VTE at the second choice point did not, and only increased after unexpected transitions within the task. This suggests that deliberation at the beginning of trials may correspond to changes in choice patterns, while mid-trial deliberation may correspond to an interruption of a procedural process.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 35%
Psychology 6 11%
Computer Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,422,940
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#516
of 858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,306
of 331,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 331,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.