MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409556473 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0538-24.2025

Touchscreen Response Precision Is Sensitive to the Explore/Exploit Trade-off

2025· article· en· W4409556473 on OpenAlexafffund
Dana Mueller, Erin Giglio, Cathy S. Chen, R. Becket Ebitz, Nicola M. Grissom

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Drug AbuseNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsExploitTouchscreenCognitionCognitive psychologyComputer scienceTask (project management)Variable (mathematics)PsychologySet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningHuman–computer interactionNeuroscienceComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The explore/exploit tradeoff is a fundamental property of choice selection during reward-guided decision making. In perceptual decision making, higher certainty decisions are more motorically precise, even when the decision does not require motor accuracy. However, while we can parametrically control uncertainty in perceptual tasks, we do not know what variables - if any - shape motor precision and reflect subjective certainty during reward-guided decision making. Touchscreens are increasingly used across species to measure choice, but provide no tactile feedback on whether an action is precise or not, and therefore provide a valuable opportunity to determine whether actions differ in precision due to explore/exploit state, reward, or individual variables. We find all three of these factors exert independent drives towards increased precision. During exploit states, successive touches to the same choice are closer together than those made in an explore state, consistent with exploit states reflecting higher certainty and/or motor stereotypy in responding. However, exploit decisions might be expected to be rewarded more frequently than explore decisions. We find that exploit choice precision is increased independently of a separate increase in precision due to immediate past reward, suggesting multiple mechanisms regulating choice precision. Finally, we see evidence that male mice in general are less precise in their interactions with the touchscreen than females, even when exploiting a choice. These results suggest that as exploit behavior emerges in reward-guided decision making, individuals become more motorically precise reflecting increased certainty, even when decision choice does not require additional motor accuracy, but this is influenced by individual differences and prior reward. These data uncover the hidden potential for touchscreen tasks in any species to uncover the latent neural states that unite cognition and movement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuro→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→