Decisions in Changing Conditions: The Urgency-Gating Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several widely accepted models of decision making suggest that, during simple decision tasks, neural activity builds up until a threshold is reached and a decision is made. These models explain error rates and reaction time distributions in a variety of tasks and are supported by neurophysiological studies showing that neural activity in several cortical and subcortical regions gradually builds up at a rate related to task difficulty and reaches a relatively constant level of discharge at a time that predicts movement initiation. The mechanism responsible for this buildup is believed to be related to the temporal integration of sequential samples of sensory information. However, an alternative mechanism that may explain the neural and behavioral data is one in which the buildup of activity is instead attributable to a growing signal related to the urgency to respond, which multiplicatively modulates updated estimates of sensory evidence. These models are difficult to distinguish when, as in previous studies, subjects are presented with constant sensory evidence throughout each trial. To distinguish the models, we presented human subjects with a task in which evidence changed over the course of each trial. Our results are more consistent with "urgency gating" than with temporal integration of sensory samples and suggest a simple mechanism for implementing trade-offs between the speed and accuracy of decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".