↓ Skip to main content

Optimal policy for value-based decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
313 Mendeley
Title
Optimal policy for value-based decision-making
Published in
Nature Communications, August 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms12400
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satohiro Tajima, Jan Drugowitsch, Alexandre Pouget

Abstract

For decades now, normative theories of perceptual decisions, and their implementation as drift diffusion models, have driven and significantly improved our understanding of human and animal behaviour and the underlying neural processes. While similar processes seem to govern value-based decisions, we still lack the theoretical understanding of why this ought to be the case. Here, we show that, similar to perceptual decisions, drift diffusion models implement the optimal strategy for value-based decisions. Such optimal decisions require the models' decision boundaries to collapse over time, and to depend on the a priori knowledge about reward contingencies. Diffusion models only implement the optimal strategy under specific task assumptions, and cease to be optimal once we start relaxing these assumptions, by, for example, using non-linear utility functions. Our findings thus provide the much-needed theory for value-based decisions, explain the apparent similarity to perceptual decisions, and predict conditions under which this similarity should break down.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 305 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 29%
Researcher 52 17%
Student > Master 36 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 43 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 80 26%
Psychology 70 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 8%
Computer Science 16 5%
Engineering 10 3%
Other 57 18%
Unknown 54 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,275,793
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#19,241
of 54,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,398
of 350,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#304
of 799 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 54,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 350,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 799 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 62% of its contemporaries.