MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computing Value from Quality and Quantity in Human Decision-Making

2018· article· en· W2901089998 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilMax-Planck-GesellschaftWellcome Trust
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMachine learningEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How organisms learn the value of single stimuli through experience is well described. In many decisions, however, value estimates are computed “on the fly” by combining multiple stimulus attributes. The neural basis of this computation is poorly understood. Here we explore a common scenario in which decision-makers must combine information about quality and quantity to determine the best option. Using fMRI, we examined the neural representation of quality, quantity, and their integration into an integrated subjective value signal in humans of both genders. We found that activity within inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) correlated with offer quality, while activity in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) specifically correlated with offer quantity. Several brain regions, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), were sensitive to an interaction of quality and quantity. However, the ACC was uniquely activated by quality, quantity, and their interaction, suggesting that this region provides a substrate for flexible computation of value from both quality and quantity. Furthermore, ACC signals across subjects correlated with the strength of quality and quantity signals in IFG and IPS, respectively. ACC tracking of subjective value also correlated with choice predictability. Finally, activity in the ACC was elevated for choice trials, suggesting that ACC provides a nexus for the computation of subjective value in multiattribute decision-making. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Would you prefer three apples or two oranges? Many choices we make each day require us to weigh up the quality and quantity of different outcomes. Using fMRI, we show that option quality is selectively represented in the inferior frontal gyrus, while option quantity correlates with areas of the intraparietal sulcus that have previously been associated with numerical processing. We show that information about the two is integrated into a value signal in the anterior cingulate cortex, and the fidelity of this integration predicts choice predictability. Our results demonstrate how on-the-fly value estimates are computed from multiple attributes in human value-based decision-making.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it