| Title |
Decoding subjective decisions from orbitofrontal cortex
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Neuroscience, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nn.4320 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erin L Rich, Jonathan D Wallis |
| Abstract |
When making a subjective choice, the brain must compute a value for each option and compare those values to make a decision. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is critically involved in this process, but the neural mechanisms remain obscure, in part due to limitations in our ability to measure and control the internal deliberations that can alter the dynamics of the decision process. Here we tracked these dynamics by recovering temporally precise neural states from multidimensional data in OFC. During individual choices, OFC alternated between states associated with the value of two available options, with dynamics that predicted whether a subject would decide quickly or vacillate between the two alternatives. Ensembles of value-encoding neurons contributed to these states, with individual neurons shifting activity patterns as the network evaluated each option. Thus, the mechanism of subjective decision-making involves the dynamic activation of OFC states associated with each choice alternative. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 36% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 62% |
| Scientists | 17 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 571 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 2% |
| Germany | 6 | 1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 545 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 179 | 31% |
| Researcher | 124 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 48 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 43 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 37 | 6% |
| Other | 74 | 13% |
| Unknown | 66 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 172 | 30% |
| Psychology | 105 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 102 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 4% |
| Engineering | 20 | 4% |
| Other | 51 | 9% |
| Unknown | 96 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 122. 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 11 October 2021.
All research outputs
#338,940
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Nature Neuroscience
#614
of 5,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,665
of 348,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Neuroscience
#10
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 348,936 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.