MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215964568 · doi:10.1002/wcs.1586

Temporal dynamics of decision making: A synthesis of computational and neurophysiological approaches

2021· review· en· W3215964568 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Harris, Cendri A. Hutcherson

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurophysiologyComputational modelMagnetoencephalographyElectroencephalographyComputer scienceWeightingCognitionNeural correlates of consciousnessCognitive psychologyCognitive neurosciencePerceptionStimulus (psychology)Mismatch negativityPsychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As interest in the temporal dynamics of decision-making has grown, researchers have increasingly turned to computational approaches such as the drift diffusion model (DDM) to identify how cognitive processes unfold during choice. At the same time, technological advances in noninvasive neurophysiological methods such as electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography now allow researchers to map the neural time course of decision making with millisecond precision. Combining these approaches can potentially yield important new insights into how choices emerge over time. Here we review recent research on the computational and neurophysiological correlates of perceptual and value-based decision making, from DDM parameters to scalp potentials and oscillatory neural activity. Starting with motor response preparation, the most well-understood aspect of the decision process, we discuss evidence that urgency signals and shifts in baseline activation, rather than shifts in the physiological value of the choice-triggering response threshold, are responsible for adjusting response times under speeded choice scenarios. Research on the neural correlates of starting point bias suggests that prestimulus activity can predict biases in motor choice behavior. Finally, studies examining the time dynamics of evidence construction and evidence accumulation have identified signals at frontocentral and centroparietal electrodes associated respectively with these processes, emerging 300-500 ms after stimulus onset. These findings can inform psychological theories of decision-making, providing empirical support for attribute weighting in value-based choice while suggesting theoretical alternatives to dual-process accounts. Further research combining computational and neurophysiological approaches holds promise for providing greater insight into the moment-by-moment evolution of the decision process. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making Neuroscience > Cognition Economics > Individual 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.133 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive ScienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207