Decision-making behaviors: weighing ethology, complexity, and sensorimotor compatibility
Open accessAbstract
Rodent decision-making research aims to uncover the neural circuitry underlying the ability to evaluate alternatives and select appropriate actions. Designing behavioral paradigms that provide a solid foundation to ask questions about decision-making computations and mechanisms is a difficult and often underestimated challenge. Here, we propose three dimensions on which we can consider rodent decision-making tasks: ethological validity, task complexity, and stimulus-response compatibility. We review recent research through this lens, and provide practical guidance for researchers in the decision-making field.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ecologically relevant stimuli increase the chance of animals mastering the task quickly, reacting coherently, and consistently using similar, well-conserved neural circuitry.
“It would increase the chance of animals mastering the task quickly, reacting in a coherent way and-crucially for brain studies-consistently using similar, well-conserved neural circuitry.10”
From Ecological validity of social interaction tests in rats and mice (2019) · cites this paper as [10]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 91 · Cited by 82
- Authors
- Juavinett, A. L., Erlich, J. C., & Churchland, A. K.
- Affiliations
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
- New York University Shanghai (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Churchland, Anne K
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Neurobiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 49
- Pages
- 42-50
- ISSN
- 0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5889959
- OpenAlex
- W2769923555
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Eye Institute (R01EY022979)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- behavioral paradigms, task complexity, stimulus-response compatibility, alternative assessment
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Electronic Data Processing, Behavior, Animal, Decision Making, Ethology, Humans, Models, Animal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
