The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 62 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Decision-making with multiple alternatives
Open accessAbstract
Simple perceptual tasks have laid the groundwork for understanding the neurobiology of decision-making. Here, we examined this foundation to explain how decision-making circuitry adjusts in the face of a more difficult task. We measured behavioral and physiological responses of monkeys on a two- and four-choice direction-discrimination decision task. For both tasks, firing rates in the lateral intraparietal area appeared to reflect the accumulation of evidence for or against each choice. Evidence accumulation began at a lower firing rate for the four-choice task, but reached a common level by the end of the decision process. The larger excursion suggests that the subjects required more evidence before making a choice. Furthermore, on both tasks, we observed a time-dependent rise in firing rates that may impose a deadline for deciding. These physiological observations constitute an effective strategy for handling increased task difficulty. The differences appear to explain subjects' accuracy and reaction times.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Churchland, Kiani, and Shadlen recorded from macaque lateral intraparietal area (LIP) during 2- and 4-choice motion direction discrimination and found that LIP firing rates still resemble bounded evidence accumulation, but the 4-choice task starts from a lower firing rate and requires a larger firing-rate excursion to reach a common termination level. These physiological differences, together with a weaker time-dependent urgency signal in the 4-choice task, help explain longer reaction times and accuracy on the harder task.
Key findings
- LIP responses reflected evidence accumulation in both tasks: firing rates began lower on 4-choice trials but reached a similar level near the saccade for choices into the response field. The firing-rate excursion was 6.11 ± 0.21 sp/s larger for 4-choice than 2-choice (p < 0.0005), and this was significant in both monkeys (Monkey I: 4.7 ± 0.27 sp/s, p < 0.02; Monkey S: 11.9 ± 1.0 sp/s, p < 0.005).
- Before motion onset, 4-choice firing rates were lower than 2-choice by a mean of 16.1 ± 1.6 sp/s (p < 10⁻⁵); during the early motion dip, they were lower by 9.17 ± 1.05 sp/s (p < 10⁻⁵). A 90° control task reduced firing rates much less (3.7 ± 2.1 sp/s lower than 2-choice, p < 0.05), suggesting the number of choices largely explains the reduction.
- The motion-strength dependence of buildup rate was similar for 2- and 4-choice for motion toward the response-field target (difference 0.17 ± 0.45 sp·s⁻²·%coh⁻¹, p = 0.71). Orthogonal motion had a weak negative effect on average (slope −0.33 ± 0.09 sp·s⁻²·%coh⁻¹, p < 10⁻³), and the time-dependent urgency signal was larger in the 2-choice task (2-choice intercept 50.7 ± 8.2 sp/s/s greater than 4-choice, p < 10⁻⁵).
- Behaviorally, accuracy was near perfect at high motion strengths and fell toward chance at low strengths; reaction times were longer on the 4-choice task at all motion strengths (p < 0.01). A bounded-accumulation race model constrained by LIP physiology fit both choice and reaction-time data.
Methods
- Two monkeys (Monkey I: 51 neurons; Monkey S: 19 neurons; total 70 LIP neurons) performed randomly interleaved 2-choice and 4-choice random-dot motion direction discrimination tasks, reporting choices with saccades to peripheral targets. For 29 neurons, a 90° control task was also interleaved.
- LIP single-neuron activity was recorded during the tasks. Firing rates were measured before motion, early in motion (170–210 ms after motion onset), and late before saccade (40–80 ms before saccade); buildup rate was estimated as the slope of firing rate from 190–320 ms after motion onset.
- Regression analyses compared firing rates and buildup rates across conditions. A bounded-accumulation/race model with bound height and urgency signal constrained by LIP measurements was fit to behavioral choice and reaction-time data.
Limitations
- The paper states that the model is not unique, that fitted parameters should be interpreted cautiously because key parameters were fixed from LIP measurements, and that it is unclear whether firing rates before Tout and T90 choices achieve a stereotyped level. It also notes that the effect of orthogonal motion may be an artifact of averaging the two T90 directions, that the experiment is not definitive for more than 4 choices or continuous choices, and that the angular separation between alternatives was large compared with the range primates can discriminate.
- The paper states that it could not cleanly dissociate uncertainty from the number of targets because a manipulation adding irrelevant targets introduced unacceptable biases in subsequent testing.
- Evident from the text: the physiological sample is limited to two monkeys and 70 LIP neurons, and the study is restricted to a motion discrimination task and LIP. The paper also reports small oculomotor differences between tasks—slightly faster peak saccade velocity on 4-choice (mean percent difference −1.37 ± 0.5%, p < 0.01) and less accurate saccade endpoints (mean percent difference −4.87 ± 2.03%, p < 0.03)—though these were included as covariates in control regressions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
93 Own result · 61 Own interpretation · 26 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 6 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was subtly apparent in the transient target onset response and then was prominent until motion onset (mean difference = 16.1±1.6 sp/s, p<10−5, Fig. 3c, arrow).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect was statistically significant in both monkeys (Monkey I: mean difference, 15.5±1.8 sp/s, p<10−5 Monkey S: 18.8±2.6sp/s, p<10−4).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both tasks, firing rates in the lateral intraparietal area appeared to reflect the accumulation of evidence for or against each choice.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shortly after onset, the responses showed a brief dip (Fig. 2a,c, middle panel), followed by a gradual rise in firing rate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This relationship was similar on 2- and 4-choice tasks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reduced firing rate on the 4-choice task persisted after motion onset.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Near the saccade, however, this neural correlate of motion strength 1,2,15 vanished (Fig. 2a,c, right).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Gold, J.I. & Shadlen, M.N. The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 535–574 (2007). source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Roitman, J.D. & Shadlen, M.N. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22, 9475–9489 (2002). source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Cook, E.P. & Maunsell, J.H. Dynamics of neuronal responses in macaque MT and VIP during motion detection. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 985–994 (2002). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence accumulation began at a lower firing rate for the 4-choice task, but reached a common level at the end of the decision process.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Early on, decision outcome has only a weak effect on the neural responses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of choice is most conspicuous late in the decision process (Fig. 5a–d).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four factors affect buildup: decision outcome, motion strength, number of choices present and the passage of time (Figures 4 and 5).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These differences were largest at lower motion strengths but significant at all motion strengths (Fig. 1e, p<0.01).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Target appearance caused a large, transient increase in firing rate (Fig. 2a,c, left) followed by the establishment of a baseline firing rate as the monkey awaited the onset of the random dot motion.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firing rate was also reduced in the 90° control task, though much less than in the 4-choice task (Fig. 3d, 3.7±2.1 sp/s lower on the 90° control task than on the 2-choice task, p<0.05).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, on both tasks, we observed a time-dependent rise in firing rates that may impose a deadline for deciding.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both tasks, accuracy was nearly perfect at high motion strengths and fell toward chance with lower motion strengths (Fig. 1d).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accuracy on this task emulated the standard 2-choice task (Fig. 1f), albeit with longer RTs, which fell between those on the standard 2- and 4-choice conditions (Fig. 1g).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, unlike the buildup rates at the beginning of the decision, the firing rates at the end of decisions for Tin did not vary as a function of motion strength (p>0.57 for 2 and 4-choice) and were the same for correct and error trials (p>0.78 for 2- and 4-choice).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firing rates tended to be lower on the 4-choice task overall (difference = 9.81±4.08 sp/s, p<0.02).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed a weak dependence of firing rate on motion strength, but the effects were not statistically reliable (p>0.07 in all cases).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the monkeys distributed their choices with nearly equal frequency to all (two or four) choice targets, firing rates increased as a function of time.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference, present in individual neurons (e.g., Fig. 6a), was highly significant across the population (Fig. 6b,c, p<0.0005) and in both monkeys individually (excursion difference: Monkey I: 4.7±0.27 sp/s, p<0.02, Monkey S: 11.9±1.0 sp/s, p<0.005).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For motion toward Tout, increasing motion strength suppressed buildup rate slightly more in the 2-choice condition, but the difference was not reliable (difference = 0.50±0.31 sp.s−2.%coh−1; p=0.11, see Methods, Eq. 3).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The magnitude of this difference depends on which interval we use to estimate firing rates at the end of the trial, but the effect is statistically significant for a wide range (Supplementary Fig 2c).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model provides an adequate account of both RT and accuracy on both tasks (smooth curves Figure 1,d–g).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The decision process can be modeled as a race between 2- or 4-choice mechanisms that determines which target will be selected.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each choice mechanism accumulates momentary evidence in favor of the choice target in its response field.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A decision ensues when one of the accumulators reaches a bound.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A prominent buildup in firing rate does not depend on motion strength or direction and is not explained by the monkey’s choice, as seen in 0% motion strength trials, which favor all directions equally, on average (Fig. 4a–d, cyan traces).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stronger motion was associated with lower buildup rates (note the negative slopes).”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
“The magnitude of the coherence-dependent change of buildup was greater in the 2-choice task (mean difference = 0.075±0.021 sp·s−2·%coh−1 less negative for 4-choice trials, p<0.001).”
plaincorrelationaln = 70 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the effect of choice number on firing rate excursion that we report here was present for a range of time intervals, centered up to 130 ms before the saccade (Supplementary Fig. 2c).”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
“Firing rate excursions were significantly larger for 4-choice than for 2-choice responses over a wide range of termination intervals.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean response to T90 targets is similar to the mean response to Tout targets, suggesting that they are not in a suppressive region of the RF or its surround.”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
“The arrow indicates the mean difference (0.36±0.63 sp/s larger for T90 choices than for Tout choices, p=0.57).”
plainn = 46- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar urgency signals are observed on trials with nonzero motion strengths (data not shown).”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · plain
“Similar urgency signals are observed on trials with nonzero motion strengths (data not shown).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rates are ¼ for 180° choices and ½ for the combined±90° choices.”
plainn = 70- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stronger motion was associated with larger buildup rates (note the positive slopes).”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
“The magnitude of the coherence-dependent change was similar for 2- and 4-choice conditions (mean difference = 0.02±0.03 sp·s−2·% coh−1, p=0.53, arrow).”
plaincorrelationaln = 70- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference is similar in magnitude to the one seen in the epoch preceding onset of random dot motion (Fig. 3, main text).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they continue to rise until ~10 ms before saccade initiation, on average.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the trend was for slightly faster saccades on the 4-choice task (mean percent difference = −1.37±0.5%, p<0.01).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The arrow indicates the mean difference (0.36±0.63 sp/s larger for T90 choices than for Tout choices, p=0.57).”
plainn = 46- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Second, neuronal firing rates in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) are consistent with evidence accumulation 2,7–9.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Roitman, J.D. & Shadlen, M.N. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22, 9475–9489 (2002). source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Shadlen, M.N. & Newsome, W.T. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 86, 1916–1936 (2001). source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Hanks, T.D., Ditterich, J. & Shadlen, M.N. Microstimulation of macaque area LIP affects decision-making in a motion discrimination task. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 682–689 (2006). source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Huk, A.C. & Shadlen, M.N. Neural activity in macaque parietal cortex reflects temporal integration of visual motion signals during perceptual decision making. J. Neurosci. 25, 10420–10436 (2005). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Multi- and single-unit responses with these characteristics are common in the ventral portion of LIP targeted in these experiments (LIPv 11).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Lewis, J.W. & Van Essen, D.C. Corticocortical connections of visual, sensorimotor and multimodal processing areas in the parietal lobe of the macaque monkey. J. Comp. Neurol. 428, 112–137 (2000). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, a formal model of bounded accumulation accounts quantitatively for subjects’ speed and accuracy3,6.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Palmer, J., Huk, A.C. & Shadlen, M.N. The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. J. Vis. 5, 376–404 (2005). source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Mazurek, M.E., Roitman, J.D., Ditterich, J. & Shadlen, M.N. A role for neural integrators in perceptual decision making. Cereb. Cortex 13, 1257–1269 (2003). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Specifically, when stimulus motion favors the target in the response field (RF) of an LIP neuron, firing rates build up progressively as monkeys form their decisions; the rate of buildup is proportional to motion strength.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Roitman, J.D. & Shadlen, M.N. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22, 9475–9489 (2002). source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Shadlen, M.N. & Newsome, W.T. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 86, 1916–1936 (2001). source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Hanks, T.D., Ditterich, J. & Shadlen, M.N. Microstimulation of macaque area LIP affects decision-making in a motion discrimination task. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 682–689 (2006). source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Huk, A.C. & Shadlen, M.N. Neural activity in macaque parietal cortex reflects temporal integration of visual motion signals during perceptual decision making. J. Neurosci. 25, 10420–10436 (2005). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that the smaller angular separation between targets contributes to the reduction in activity seen in the 4-choice task in this epoch, but the reduction is largely explained by the number of choices.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model—especially the hybrid of fixed and free terms—is not unique but underscores the consistency of physiological and behavioral measurements within the framework of bounded accumulation.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover this buildup begins at a fixed time after the onset of motion and signals the end of decision (for Tin) by achieving a critical level.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The set was identical in all conditions, so the 2-choice task was easy, probably explaining the faster RTs here.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The positive buildup rates at all motion strengths and for all directions effectively impose a deadline on the decision process—a deadline that is earlier when there are just 2 choices.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This hypothesis was suggested by theorists5,28,29 but had not been tested.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Laming, D.R.J. Information Theory of Choice-Reaction Times (Wiley, New York, 1968).
- Not checked yetcites [28] Usher, M. & McClelland, J.L. The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol. Rev. 108, 550–592 (2001). source
- Not checked yetcites [29] McMillen, T. & Holmes, P. The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives. J. Math. Psychol. 50, 30–57 (2006). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these observations are consistent with longer RTs on the 4-choice task: it takes longer for LIP firing rates to undergo the larger excursion.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many models are proposed to explain the coordination of RT and choice accuracy in 2-choice tasks 4,18,25–27. These models share a common feature: a termination bound is applied to some form of evidence representation, the decision variable.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Link, S.W. & Heath, R.A. A sequential theory of psychological discrimination. Psychometrika 40, 77–105 (1975). source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Reddi, B.A., Asrress, K.N. & Carpenter, R.H. Accuracy, information, and response time in a saccadic decision task. J. Neurophysiol. 90, 3538–35346 (2003). source
- Not checked yetcites [25] Ratcliff, R. & Rouder, J.N. Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychol. Sci. 9, 347–356 (1998). source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Luce, R.D. Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization (Oxford University Press, New York, 1986).
- Not checked yetcites [27] Lo, C.C. & Wang, X.J. Cortico-basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 956–963 (2006). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because chance represents 50% correct, there is less impetus to complete the trial at weak motion strengths, which probably explains the weaker urgency signal, u(t), seen previously in 2-choice experiments2,36.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Roitman, J.D. & Shadlen, M.N. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22, 9475–9489 (2002). source
- Not checked yetcites [36] Ditterich, J. Stochastic models of decisions about motion direction: behavior and physiology. Neural Netw. 19, 981–1012 (2006). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DV undergoes a larger excursion in the 4-choice task because the accumulation of evidence begins at a lower starting point”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Buildup rates in LIP reflect, at least in part, this subtraction: a change in motion strength in the direction favoring Tin leads to a proportional rise in buildup rate in LIP, and an opposite change in motion strength leads to a comparable decline.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the number of alternatives is increased, all else being equal, the level of uncertainty is initially increased.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We obtained similar results whether buildup rates were from individual neurons (as described above) or were computed from the average population response (data not shown).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The null hypothesis, that the number of choices did not affect the excursion, was again rejected at the population level (p<0.01) and in all but one of the individual cells where the effect of firing rate excursion was significant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The urgency signal shortens the RTs and leads to an apparent rise in the DV even for processes that accumulate negative evidence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A time-dependent rise of firing rate in LIP and elsewhere has been interpreted as a representation of elapsed time in the form of a hazard rate or anticipation function 12,33–35.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Leon, M.I. & Shadlen, M.N. Representation of time by neurons in the posterior parietal cortex of the macaque. Neuron 38, 317–327 (2003). source
- Not checked yetcites [33] Janssen, P. & Shadlen, M.N. A representation of the hazard rate of elapsed time in macaque area LIP. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 234–241 (2005). source
- Not checked yetcites [34] Brody, C.D., Hernandez, A., Zainos, A. & Romo, R. Timing and neural encoding of somatosensory parametric working memory in macaque prefrontal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 13, 1196–1207 (2003). source
- Not checked yetcites [35] Maimon, G. & Assad, J.A. A cognitive signal for the proactive timing of action in macaque LIP. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 948–955 (2006). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it is not surprising that the brain would accrue more evidence before terminating the decision.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two methods sometimes yielded slightly different estimates, but the direction and significance of all results reported here was the same for both methods.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the latter, the contribution of the two non-opposing directions (T90) was small (figure 4f, red dot-dash trace), but we doubt this will generalize to more directions and choices.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Long decision times would improve performance above chance (25% correct), but not for the 0% motion strength trials and not by much for the next weakest motion strength.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our experiment is not definitive here, in part because the angle between alternatives is large compared to the range of angles that primates can discriminate 22–24.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Jazayeri, M. & Movshon, J.A. A new perceptual illusion reveals mechanisms of sensory decoding. Nature 446, 912–915 (2007). source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Purushothaman, G. & Bradley, D.C. Neural population code for fine perceptual decisions in area MT. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 99–106 (2005). source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Churchland, A.K. et al. Directional anisotropies reveal a functional segregation of visual motion processing for perception and action. Neuron 37, 1001–1011 (2003). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cost is decision time, but this is tempered by implementation of a deadline imposed by the urgency signal.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The urgency signal is the difference between the observed firing rates and this expectation from unbiased diffusion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: When the evidence is neutral (0% coherence), assuming no choice bias, the bounded accumulation model approximates an unbiased diffusion of evidence: a rising variance but no change in the mean evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses using different time intervals affected the reported values of buildup rate only slightly; the largest effect was on buildup rates corresponding to the highest motion strength, owing mainly to the attrition of trials with short RTs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although magnitude of the difference in excursion depends on the choice of termination window, the central claim that excursion is larger on the 4-choice task appears robust.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the central claim that excursion is larger on the 4-choice task appears robust.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The urgency signal shortens the RTs and leads to an apparent rise in the DV even for processes that accumulate negative evidence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Direction sensors with orthogonal preferences do not contribute substantially to the mean accumulation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For decisions between 2 opposite directions, the momentary evidence is a difference in firing rates of direction selective neurons with opposite direction preferences.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DV undergoes a larger excursion in the 4-choice task because the accumulation of evidence begins at a lower starting point”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Direction sensors with orthogonal preferences do not contribute substantially to the mean accumulation.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For decisions between 2 opposite directions, the momentary evidence is a difference in firing rates of direction selective neurons with opposite direction preferences.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The decision process can be modeled as a race between 2- or 4-choice mechanisms that determines which target will be selected.
“Our model implements a race between 2- or 4-choice mechanisms to determine which target will be selected (Supplementary Fig. 6a, d).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each choice mechanism accumulates momentary evidence in favor of the choice target in its response field.
“Each mechanism accumulates momentary evidence in favor of the choice target in its RF.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A decision ensues when one of the accumulators reaches a bound.
“A decision ensues when one of the accumulators reaches a bound.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
When the evidence is neutral (0% coherence), assuming no choice bias, the bounded accumulation model approximates an unbiased diffusion of evidence: a rising variance but no change in the mean evidence.
“For example, when the evidence is neutral (0% coherence), assuming no choice bias, the bounded accumulation model approximates an unbiased diffusion of evidence: a rising variance but no change in the mean evidence.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no choice bias in the 0% coherence condition.
“assuming no choice bias”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The evidence is a linear combination of MT activity tuned for motion toward the targets.
“We assume the evidence is a linear combination of MT activity tuned for motion toward the targets.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Direction sensors with orthogonal preferences do not contribute substantially to the mean accumulation.
“we assume that direction sensors with orthogonal preferences do not contribute substantially to the mean accumulation.”
“In the model used to fit the behavior, we assume that direction sensors with orthogonal preferences do not contribute substantially to the mean accumulation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The decision terminates when one decision variable reaches a threshold level, termed the bound, which determines the choice and the decision time.
“The decision terminates when one DV reaches a threshold level, termed the bound (horizontal line), which determines the choice and the decision time.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The reaction time is the decision time plus a nondecision time.
“The RT is the decision time plus a nondecision time (Normally distributed with mean T0 and standard deviation T0).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For decisions between 2 opposite directions, the momentary evidence is a difference in firing rates of direction selective neurons with opposite direction preferences.
“For decisions between 2 opposite directions, the momentary evidence is thought to be a difference in firing rates of direction selective neurons with opposite direction preferences.”
“For decisions between 2 opposite directions, the momentary evidence is thought to be a difference in firing rates of direction selective neurons with opposite direction preferences.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The momentary evidence is a random number drawn from a Normal distribution whose mean depends on the strength and direction of motion and standard deviation σ.
“At each moment, this difference is a random number drawn from a Normal distribution (inset) whose mean depends on the strength and direction of motion (meaN=K · C, where C is motion strength) and standard deviation σ”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“(6) and a leaky integrator (30) that produce a better fit (BIC of −705).”
From Neural correlates of perceptual decision-making in the primary somatosensory cortex (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Here, close to the top of the cortical hierarchy, internal decision variables (DV) are accumulated in a form of ramping neural activity (3–6) that is transformed into a decision when a decision boundary is reached (7).”
From Neural correlates of perceptual decision-making in the primary somatosensory cortex (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“To accommodate this, we introduced additional model components [Generalized DDM (49)] including exponentially collapsing bounds (6) and a leaky integrator (30) that produce a better fit (BIC of −705).”
From Neural correlates of perceptual decision-making in the primary somatosensory cortex (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“The decision terminates naturally when there is no more evidence (e.g., when the stimulus duration is short) or when v reaches a critical level or bound.”
From Representation of Confidence Associated with a Decision by Neurons in the Parietal Cortex (2009) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“variation in the buildup rate also affects the amount of time it takes to reach a decision (19–21, 37, 38)”
From Representation of Confidence Associated with a Decision by Neurons in the Parietal Cortex (2009) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“DDMs have been shown to successfully capture perceptual [84] and value-based [85] decision-making, as well as the firing rates of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area of the monkey brain [84].”
From Contributions of the striatum to learning, motivation, and performance: an associative account (2012) · cites this paper as [84]
Citations
Cites
Brainard, D. H. (1997) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856897x00357 · Cited by 20,012
The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies
Pelli, D. G. (1997) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856897x00366 · Cited by 11,110
Risken, H. (1984) · Springer series in synergetics · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3 · Cited by 9,128
The Neural Basis of Decision Making
Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038 · Cited by 3,764
Self-citationOn the Rate of Gain of Information
Hick, W. E. (1952) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470215208416600 · Cited by 2,279
The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model.
Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.550 · Cited by 2,152
(1986) · Cited by 2,022
The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance
Britten, K., Shadlen, M., Newsome, W., & Movshon, J. (1992) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.12-12-04745.1992 · Cited by 1,958
Self-citationNeural Basis of a Perceptual Decision in the Parietal Cortex (Area LIP) of the Rhesus Monkey
Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (2001) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.1916 · Cited by 1,755
Self-citationRoitman, J. D., & Shadlen, M. N. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-21-09475.2002 · Cited by 1,589 · cited 1×
“Decisions between two choices in a perceptual-motion tas”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex
Mante, V., Sussillo, D., Shenoy, K. V., & Newsome, W. T. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12742 · Cited by 1,910
Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice
Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2635 · Cited by 1,408
Robertson, C. E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.112 · Cited by 1,157
Changing concepts of working memory
Ma, W. J., Husain, M., & Bays, P. M. (2014) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3655 · Cited by 1,208
Neuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data
Schultz, W. (2015) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00023.2014 · Cited by 1,126
Single-trial neural dynamics are dominated by richly varied movements
Musall, S., Kaufman, M. T., Juavinett, A., Gluf, S., & Churchland, A. K. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0502-4 · Cited by 1,102
Self-citationAttention, intention, and priority in the parietal lobe
Bisley, J. W., & Goldberg, M. E. (2010) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-152823 · Cited by 1,043
Representation of Confidence Associated with a Decision by Neurons in the Parietal Cortex
Kiani, R., & Shadlen, M. N. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1169405 · Cited by 1,027
Self-citationThe speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior
Heitz, R. P. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00150 · Cited by 1,054
The Neurobiology of Decision: Consensus and Controversy
Kable, J. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2009) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003 · Cited by 928
Krajbich, I. M., & Rangel, A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1101328108 · Cited by 774
Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits
Wang, X.-J. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.034 · Cited by 679
“This model is easily extended to decisions with multiple alternatives (Usher and McClelland, 2001; McMillen and Holmes, 2006; Bogacz et al., 2007), which is not straightforward for the diffusion model (Niwa and Ditterich, 2008; Churchland et al., 2008).”
MethodDecision Making as a Window on Cognition
Shadlen, M. N., & Kiani, R. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.047 · Cited by 694
Self-citationProbabilistic population codes for Bayesian decision making
Beck, J. M., Ma, W. J., Kiani, R., Hanks, T., Churchland, A. K., Roitman, J., Shadlen, M. N., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.021 · Cited by 645
Self-citationInside the brain of an elite athlete: the neural processes that support high achievement in sports
Yarrow, K., Brown, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2009) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2672 · Cited by 675
Speed–accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making
Chittka, L., Skorupski, P., & Raine, N. E. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.010 · Cited by 637
Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions
Forstmann, B. U., Ratcliff, R., & Wagenmakers, E. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645 · Cited by 665
The Cost of Accumulating Evidence in Perceptual Decision Making
Drugowitsch, J., Moreno-Bote, R., Churchland, A. K., Shadlen, M. N., & Pouget, A. (2012) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4010-11.2012 · Cited by 577
Self-citationNeural computations associated with goal-directed choice
Rangel, A., & Hare, T. (2010) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.03.001 · Cited by 532
Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations
van den Berg, R., Shin, H., Chou, W.-C., George, R. G., & Ma, W. J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1117465109 · Cited by 532
Decisions in Changing Conditions: The Urgency-Gating Model
Cisek, P., Puskas, G. A., & El-Murr, S. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1844-09.2009 · Cited by 541
Choice Certainty Is Informed by Both Evidence and Decision Time
Kiani, R., Corthell, L., & Shadlen, M. N. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.015 · Cited by 470
Self-citationA category-free neural population supports evolving demands during decision-making
Raposo, D. C., Kaufman, M. T., & Churchland, A. K. (2014) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3865 · Cited by 490
Self-citationPerceptual Decision Making in Rodents, Monkeys, and Humans
Hanks, T. D., & Summerfield, C. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.003 · Cited by 409
Stochastic dynamics as a principle of brain function
Deco, G., Rolls, E. T., & Romo, R. (2009) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2009.01.006 · Cited by 392
Elapsed Decision Time Affects the Weighting of Prior Probability in a Perceptual Decision Task
Hanks, T. D., Mazurek, M. E., Kiani, R., Hopp, E., & Shadlen, M. N. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5613-10.2011 · Cited by 378
Self-citationBeta-Band Activity during Motor Planning Reflects Response Uncertainty
Tzagarakis, C., Ince, N. F., Leuthold, A. C., & Pellizzer, G. (2010) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6026-09.2010 · Cited by 406
Variance as a signature of neural computations during decision making
Churchland, A. K., Kiani, R., Chaudhuri, R., Wang, X.-J., Pouget, A., & Shadlen, M. N. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.037 · Cited by 350
Self-citationNeurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making.
Purcell, B. A., Heitz, R. P., Cohen, J. Y., Schall, J. D., Logan, G. D., & Palmeri, T. J. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0020311 · Cited by 342
Normalization is a general neural mechanism for context-dependent decision making
Louie, K., Khaw, M. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1217854110 · Cited by 327
Milosavljevic, M., Malmaud, J., Huth, A. G., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500001285 · Cited by 333
Contributions of the striatum to learning, motivation, and performance: an associative account
Liljeholm, M., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.007 · Cited by 317
Reward value-based gain control: divisive normalization in parietal cortex
Louie, K., Grattan, L. E., & Glimcher, P. W. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1237-11.2011 · Cited by 308
“Similarly, in a motion-discrimination task with varying numbers of alternatives, LIP activity is lower when four choices are presented rather than two choices (Churchland et al., 2008).”
BackgroundSingle-trial spike trains in parietal cortex reveal discrete steps during decision-making
Latimer, K. W., Yates, J. L., Meister, M. L. R., Huk, A. C., & Pillow, J. W. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa4056 · Cited by 306
A Neurocomputational Model of Altruistic Choice and Its Implications
Hutcherson, C. A., Bushong, B., & Rangel, A. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.031 · Cited by 299
Neural Coding of Uncertainty and Probability
Ma, W. J., & Jazayeri, M. (2014) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014017 · Cited by 290
Revisiting the Evidence for Collapsing Boundaries and Urgency Signals in Perceptual Decision-Making
Hawkins, G. E., Forstmann, B. U., Wagenmakers, E., Ratcliff, R., & Brown, S. D. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2410-14.2015 · Cited by 298
Deliberation and Commitment in the Premotor and Primary Motor Cortex during Dynamic Decision Making
Thura, D., & Cisek, P. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.031 · Cited by 297
A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence
van den Berg, R., Anandalingam, K., Zylberberg, A., Kiani, R., Shadlen, M. N., & Wolpert, D. M. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.12192 · Cited by 270
Self-citationPrestimulus Oscillatory Activity over Motor Cortex Reflects Perceptual Expectations
de Lange, F. P., Rahnev, D., Donner, T. H., & Lau, H. C. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1094-12.2013 · Cited by 289
Decision making by urgency gating: theory and experimental support
Thura, D., Beauregard-Racine, J., Fradet, C.-W., & Cisek, P. (2012) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.01071.2011 · Cited by 279
Polanía, R., Krajbich, I. M., Grueschow, M., & Ruff, C. C. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.014 · Cited by 285
The Largest Response Component in the Motor Cortex Reflects Movement Timing but Not Movement Type
Kaufman, M. T., Seely, J., Sussillo, D., Ryu, S. I., Shenoy, K. V., & Churchland, M. M. (2016) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0085-16.2016 · Cited by 242
Perceptual decision making in less than 30 milliseconds
Stanford, T. R., Shankar, S., Massoglia, D. P., Costello, M. G., & Salinas, E. (2010) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2485 · Cited by 228
Bayesian Computation through Cortical Latent Dynamics
Sohn, H., Narain, D., Meirhaeghe, N., & Jazayeri, M. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.06.012 · Cited by 235
The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory
Zelinsky, G. J., & Bisley, J. W. (2015) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.12606 · Cited by 240
A neural mechanism of speed-accuracy tradeoff in macaque area LIP
Hanks, T., Kiani, R., & Shadlen, M. N. (2014) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.02260 · Cited by 222
Self-citationThe hare and the tortoise: Emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions.
Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. D. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0036801 · Cited by 222
Domain General Mechanisms of Perceptual Decision Making in Human Cortex
Ho, T. C., Brown, S. D., & Serences, J. T. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5984-08.2009 · Cited by 225
Bridging Neural and Computational Viewpoints on Perceptual Decision-Making
O’Connell, R. G., Shadlen, M. N., Wong‐Lin, K., & Kelly, S. P. (2018) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2018.06.005 · Cited by 217
Self-citationChoice history biases subsequent evidence accumulation
Urai, A. E., de Gee, J. W., Tsetsos, K., & Donner, T. H. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.46331 · Cited by 237
Speed, Accuracy, and the Optimal Timing of Choices
Fudenberg, D., Strack, P., & Strzalecki, T. (2018) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20150742 · Cited by 211
Optimal policy for value-based decision-making
Tajima, S., Drugowitsch, J., & Pouget, A. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12400 · Cited by 226
Ratcliff, R., & Frank, M. J. (2012) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco_a_00270 · Cited by 211
Brain mechanisms for perceptual and reward-related decision-making
Deco, G., Rolls, E. T., Albantakis, L., & Romo, R. (2013) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.01.010 · Cited by 196
On the challenges and mechanisms of embodied decisions
Cisek, P., & Pastor‐Bernier, A. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0479 · Cited by 203
Global gain modulation generates time-dependent urgency during perceptual choice in humans
Murphy, P. R., Boonstra, E., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms13526 · Cited by 206
Hierarchical reasoning by neural circuits in the frontal cortex
Sarafyazd, M., & Jazayeri, M. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aav8911 · Cited by 191
Rao, R. P. N. (2010) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2010.00146 · Cited by 196
Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Büchel, C. (2012) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0727-12.2012 · Cited by 196
Spikes not slots: noise in neural populations limits working memory
Bays, P. M. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.06.004 · Cited by 190
From salience to saccades: multiple-alternative gated stochastic accumulator model of visual search
Purcell, B. A., Schall, J. D., Logan, G. D., & Palmeri, T. J. (2012) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4622-11.2012 · Cited by 179
Reciprocal relations between cognitive neuroscience and formal cognitive models: opposites attract?
Forstmann, B. U., Wagenmakers, E., Eichele, T., Brown, S. D., & Serences, J. T. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.002 · Cited by 178
Decisions are expedited through multiple neural adjustments spanning the sensorimotor hierarchy
Steinemann, N. A., O’Connell, R. G., & Kelly, S. P. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06117-0 · Cited by 166
Choosing Goals, Not Rules: Deciding among Rule-Based Action Plans
Klaes, C., Westendorff, S., Chakrabarti, S., & Gail, A. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.053 · Cited by 168
Neural Mechanisms of Post-error Adjustments of Decision Policy in Parietal Cortex
Purcell, B. A., & Kiani, R. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.027 · Cited by 152
Self-citationChoice, difficulty, and confidence in the brain
Rolls, E. T., Grabenhorst, F., & Deco, G. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.073 · Cited by 148
Learning Priors for Bayesian Computations in the Nervous System
Berniker, M., Voss, M., & Kording, K. P. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012686 · Cited by 154
Thura, D., & Cisek, P. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2230-15.2016 · Cited by 148
Posterior Parietal Cortex Guides Visual Decisions in Rats
Licata, A., Kaufman, M. T., Raposo, D. C., Ryan, M., Sheppard, J. P., & Churchland, A. K. (2017) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0105-17.2017 · Cited by 152
Self-citationThe Attentional Drift Diffusion Model of Simple Perceptual Decision-Making
Tavares, G., Perona, P., & Rangel, A. (2017) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00468 · Cited by 151
Neurocomputational mechanisms of prior-informed perceptual decision-making in humans
Kelly, S. P., Corbett, E. A., & O’Connell, R. G. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00967-9 · Cited by 152
Similarity Effect and Optimal Control of Multiple-Choice Decision Making
Furman, M., & Wang, X. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.003 · Cited by 147
Meister, M. L. R., Hennig, J. A., & Huk, A. C. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2984-12.2013 · Cited by 143
A Neural Implementation of Wald’s Sequential Probability Ratio Test
Kira, S., Yang, T., & Shadlen, M. N. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.01.007 · Cited by 146
Self-citationZylberberg, A., Fetsch, C. R., & Shadlen, M. N. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.17688 · Cited by 152
Self-citationMamassian, P. (2016) · Annual Review of Vision Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-vision-111815-114630 · Cited by 154
Neural dynamics and circuit mechanisms of decision-making
Wang, X. (2012) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.08.006 · Cited by 140
A flexible framework for simulating and fitting generalized drift-diffusion models
Shinn, M., Lam, N. H., & Murray, J. D. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.56938 · Cited by 133
Attractor dynamics gate cortical information flow during decision-making
Finkelstein, A., Fontolan, L., Economo, M. N., Li, N., Romani, S., & Svoboda, K. (2021) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00840-6 · Cited by 134
Mormann, M., Malmaud, J., Huth, A. G., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1901533 · Cited by 144
Kelly, S. P., & O’Connell, R. G. (2014) · Journal of Physiology-Paris · doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2014.08.003 · Cited by 142
Hick’s law for choice reaction time: A review
Proctor, R. W., & Schneider, D. W. (2017) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2017.1322622 · Cited by 127
Slow Drift of Neural Activity as a Signature of Impulsivity in Macaque Visual and Prefrontal Cortex
Cowley, B. R., Snyder, A. C., Acar, K., Williamson, R. C., Yu, B. M., & Smith, M. A. (2020) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2020.07.021 · Cited by 137
Confidence Is the Bridge between Multi-stage Decisions
van den Berg, R., Zylberberg, A., Kiani, R., Shadlen, M. N., & Wolpert, D. M. (2016) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.021 · Cited by 125
Self-citationAttention as a decision in information space
Gottlieb, J. P., & Balan, P. F. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.001 · Cited by 125
How Does Neuroscience Affect Our Conception of Volition?
Roskies, A. L. (2010) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153151 · Cited by 136
Pupil-linked phasic arousal predicts a reduction of choice bias across species and decision domains
de Gee, J. W., Tsetsos, K., Schwabe, L., Urai, A. E., McCormick, D. A., McGinley, M. J., & Donner, T. H. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.54014 · Cited by 135
Neuronal Activity in the Human Subthalamic Nucleus Encodes Decision Conflict during Action Selection
Zaghloul, K. A., Weidemann, C. T., Lega, B. C., Jaggi, J. L., Baltuch, G. H., & Kahana, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5815-11.2012 · Cited by 126
The geometry of decision-making in individuals and collectives
Sridhar, V. H., Li, L., Gorbonos, D., Nagy, M., Schell, B. R., Sorochkin, T., Gov, N. S., & Couzin, I. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2102157118 · Cited by 120
Decoding and perturbing decision states in real time
Peixoto, D., Verhein, J. R., Kiani, R., Kao, J. C., Nuyujukian, P., Chandrasekaran, C., Brown, J., Fong, S., Ryu, S. I., Shenoy, K. V., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03181-9 · Cited by 123
Self-citationA neural mechanism underlying failure of optimal choice with multiple alternatives
Chau, B. K. H., Kolling, N., Hunt, L. T., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2014) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3649 · Cited by 128
Neurophysiology of Human Perceptual Decision-Making
O’Connell, R. G., & Kelly, S. P. (2021) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-092019-100200 · Cited by 130
The Functional Anatomy of a Perceptual Decision in the Human Brain
Kayser, A. S., Buchsbaum, B. R., Erickson, D. T., & D’Esposito, M. (2009) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00364.2009 · Cited by 124
Attractors and noise: Twin drivers of decisions and multistability
Braun, J., & Mattia, M. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.126 · Cited by 124
Functional dissection of signal and noise in MT and LIP during decision-making
Yates, J. L., Park, I. M., Katz, L. N., Pillow, J. W., & Huk, A. C. (2017) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4611 · Cited by 120
Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour
Thomas, A. W., Molter, F., Krajbich, I. M., Heekeren, H. R., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0584-8 · Cited by 129
Decision-Making, Errors, and Confidence in the Brain
Rolls, E. T., Fabian Grabenhorst, B., & Deco, G. (2010) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00571.2010 · Cited by 123
Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions
Leite, F. P., & Ratcliff, R. (2009) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/app.72.1.246 · Cited by 122
How mechanisms of perceptual decision-making affect the psychometric function
Gold, J. I., & Ding, L. (2012) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.05.008 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Churchland, A. K., Kiani, R., & Shadlen, M. N.
- Affiliations
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Churchland, Anne K
- Venue
- Nature Neuroscience
- Published
- 2008-05-18
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 693-702
- ISSN
- 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-1726
- PMC
- PMC2453226
- OpenAlex
- W2158130856
- Semantic Scholar
- b580d3fde5d6134dd4c9fe243ec1b2396ba8e913
- Cited by
- 671
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 37
- FWCI
- 19.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2008-07-01)
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- National Eye Institute (EY011378, R01EY011378)
- National Center for Research Resources (RR00166, P51RR000166)
- 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, evidence accumulation, lateral intraparietal area, direction discrimination, task difficulty, choice alternatives, neuronal firing rate, reaction time, decision accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Action Potentials, Animals, Haplorhini, Behavior, Animal, Decision Making, Discrimination, Psychological, Eye Movements, Motion, Neurons, Parietal Lobe, Reaction Time, Regression Analysis, Spatial Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
