CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionMotor Control and Adaptation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extended LATER model can account for trial-by-trial variability of both pre- and post-processes

Nakahara, Hiroyuki, Nakamura, Kae, Hikosaka, Okihide·2006·Neural Networks
DOI 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.07.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present a new decision-making model that can account for trial-by-trial variability induced by a process ("pre-process") that occurs before an explicit sensory signal specifying a later motor response. A process after explicit sensory signals, referred to herein as the "post-process", has been investigated by a variety of so-called rise-to-threshold models including the LATER model. The LATER model formulates post-process variability but treats the pre-process as fixed within a block of an experiment. We propose an extension of the LATER model, which we call the extended LATER (ELATER) model, to account for trial-by-trial variability of both pre- and post-processes together. We present the mathematical formulation of the ELATER model and analyze its characteristics, including numerical examples and an example of saccade latency data in reward-manipulated conditions with caudate activity. The ELATER model is useful for investigating decision making by taking account of trial-by-trial variability of both pre- and post-processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.07.001

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is evidence for a trial-to-trial correlation between the response latency and the preparatory activity of cortical movement neurons, before the target onset, in saccade and other sensory-motor tasks.

    “There is also evidence for a trial-to-trial correlation between the response latency and the preparatory activity of cortical movement neurons, before the target onset, in saccade and other sensory-motor tasks (Dorris et al., 1997; Churchland et al., 2006; Nakahara et al., 2006).”

    From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Nakahara et al., 2006

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 115 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Nakahara, H., Nakamura, K., & Hikosaka, O.
Affiliations
  • RIKEN Center for Brain Science (JP)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Nakahara, Hiroyuki
ORCID
Venue
Neural Networks
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1027-1046
ISSN
0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neunet.2006.07.001
OpenAlex
W1972719908
Cited by
45
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Neural Networks (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
decision models, trial-to-trial variability, saccade latency
MeSH terms
Animals, Decision Making, Discrimination, Psychological, Humans, Models, Psychological, Neurons, Probability, Reaction Time, Reward, Saccades, Sensory Thresholds, Reproducibility of Results

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