CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,051Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions

Smith, Philip L, Ratcliff, Roger·2004·Trends in Neurosciences
DOI 10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Patterns of neural firing linked to eye movement decisions show that behavioral decisions are predicted by the differential firing rates of cells coding selected and nonselected stimulus alternatives. These results can be interpreted using models developed in mathematical psychology to model behavioral decisions. Current models assume that decisions are made by accumulating noisy stimulus information until sufficient information for a response is obtained. Here, the models, and the techniques used to test them against response-time distribution and accuracy data, are described. Such models provide a quantitative link between the time-course of behavioral decisions and the growth of stimulus information in neural firing data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The consistency between selective sharpening and the dampening effects of 'explaining away' makes it harder, though not impossible, to tease apart the empirical implications of predictive coding and 'evidence accumulation' accounts.

    “The consistency between selective sharpening and the dampening effects of ' explaining away ' also makes it harder -though not impossible -to tease apart the empirical implications of predictive coding and ' evidence accumulation ' accounts such as Gold and Shadlen ' s (2001) -for a review, see Smith and Ratcliff (2004).”

    From Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science (2013) · cites this paper as Smith and Ratcliff (2004)

  • The choice at initiation and reaction times as a function of task difficulty (coherence of dot motion) were explained by a bounded drift-diffusion model consistent with previous studies in humans and monkeys.

    “The choice at initiation (initial hand trajectory) and reaction times as a function of task difficulty (coherence of dot motion) were explained by a bounded drift-diffusion model (Fig. 2, black curves) consistent with previous studies in humans and monkeys1,9,14.”

    From Changes of mind in decision-making (2009) · cites this paper as [14]

  • The diffusion model is popular because of its simplicity yet proven success with fitting behavioral data in numerous human studies.

    “The diffusion model is popular because of its simplicity yet proven success with fitting behavioral data in numerous human studies (Ratcliff, 1978; Busemeyer and Townsend, 1993; Smith and Ratcliff, 2004).”

    From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Smith and Ratcliff, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Smith, Philip L
  • Ratcliff, Roger
ORCID
Venue
Trends in Neurosciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-03
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
161-168
ISSN
0166-2236 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006
OpenAlex
W2081364575
Semantic Scholar
50b52b40d9cfa6998febe47fbb57cd9d5b5ff6ad
Cited by
1,051
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 58
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Trends in Neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG017083)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R37MH044640, K05MH001891)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
decision-making, neuronal firing rate, response time distribution, decision accuracy, neural basis of behavior
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Decision Making, Eye Movements, Humans, Information Theory, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Reaction Time, Neural Networks, Computer

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