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.
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
“Like accuracy, decision speed also depended on motion strength and 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.
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.”
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 was evident across the population of neurons tested (Fig. 3b,c).”
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
“Between target appearance and motion onset, there was a clear difference in firing rates between 2- and 4-target conditions (Fig. 3).”
boostedcorrelational- 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
“After the dip, the rate of increase in firing rate depended on motion strength (Fig. 2a,c middle).”
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
“In the example (Fig. 3a), responses were 11.9±4.0 sp/s lower on 4-choice task (p<0.003).”
plaincorrelationalSingle 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.
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 stereotyped firing rate at the end of the decision is clearer when responses are grouped by RT (4 choice: Fig. 2b,d; 2 choice: Supplementary Fig. 2a) instead of motion strength.”
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
“Following the dip, there was a time-dependent rise in the firing rate (“buildup”).”
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
“Buildup rates scale approximately linearly as a function of motion strength for motion toward and away from the neuron’s RF.”
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
“The 70 neurons recorded in our experiment had spatially selective persistent activity on delayed and memory-guided eye movement tasks (Supplementary Fig. 1).”
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.
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
“During this dip, firing rates were 9.17±1.05 sp/s lower for the 4-choice than for the 2-choice task (Supplementary Fig. 3, p<10−5).”
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.
In the paper
“RTs were longer on the 4-choice task10.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Hick, W.E. On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 4, 11–26 (1952). 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.
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 significant, this difference amounts to only 3.7% of the firing rate in this epoch.”
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 reduction became more modest through the “dip” during the beginning of motion (2-choice responses were 2.66±2.0 sp/s higher than 90° responses, p=0.10), followed by a buildup in firing rates leading to the decision.”
plainn = 29- 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.
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 see evidence for a threshold on the 4-choice task as well (Fig. 2d).”
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
“Longer viewing durations were required for the same accuracy (Fig. 1f, g).”
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.
In the paper
“A major difference between 2- and 4-choice responses was the firing rate at the beginning of the decision process (Fig. 3), consistent with the inverse relationship between the number of possible eye movement directions and firing rates in the superior colliculus preceding a saccade instruction 30.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Basso, M.A. & Wurtz, R.H. Modulation of neuronal activity in superior colliculus by changes in target probability. J. Neurosci. 18, 7519–7534 (1998). 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.
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 rise in firing rate that depends on time but not on motion strength or direction (u(t), urgency) is larger in the 2-choice task (Supplementary Fig. 6b, c).”
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
“The model also accounts for the longer RTs observed on error trials for both the 2- and 4-choice task (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
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.
- 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
“The change in excursion in the 4-choice task was also confirmed in this subset of neurons (mean difference 4.2±2.3 sp/s larger for 4-choice than for 2-choice, p<0.04).”
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
“The excursion of LIP firing rates throughout the decision is larger on the 4-choice task (Fig. 6).”
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
“Stronger motion reduced the firing rate slightly (Fig. 4f, slope of red dot-dash trace = −0.33±0.09 sp.s−2.%coh−1, p<10−3).”
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.
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 just preceding Tin choices were similar for 2- and 4-choice trials (Fig. 5a,c; responses in shaded region were on average only 3.1±1.3 sp/s higher for 4-choice than for 2-choice, p<0.03).”
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
“However, for motion toward T90, a 1% increase in motion strength decreased buildup rate.”
plaindirectn = 29- 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 magnitude of this urgency signal, u(t), fell between those measured on the 2- and 4-choice tasks (Table 1; Supplementary Fig. 6c).”
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.
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 observation was typical of the data (Fig. 7c,d; 2-choice: mean correlation coefficient was −0.22±0.02, p<10−5, N=70 neurons; 4-choice: mean correlation coefficient was −0.26±0.02, p<10−5, N=69).”
plaincorrelationaln = 70 ·- 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 motion toward Tin, these slopes differed by only 0.17±0.45 sp.s−2.%coh−1 (Fig. 4f, p=0.71, parallel solid lines).”
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
“However, the initial response when the motion began was lower for the 4-choice task than the 2-choice task (Fig. 3).”
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
“Trial-to-trial variability in buildup rate was inversely correlated with trial-to-trial variability in RT, despite the noisy estimate of buildup rate and large variation in RT.”
plaincorrelationaln = 70 ·- 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 motion strength on these buildup rates was similar to 2-choice responses for motion toward Tin (Figure 4g; for the population, slopes differed by 0.23±0.32 sp.s−2.% coh−1, p=0.47).”
plainn = 29- 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
“When choices were to the target in the neuron’s RF, firing rates for the 2- and 4-choice task ultimately reached a similar value near the time of the saccade (Fig. 2d, Supplementary Fig. 2a).”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although this angle remains large compared to fine discriminations that humans and monkeys can make 22–24, it did increase difficulty slightly, as shown by 90° separation in a 2-choice task.”
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
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.
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 have already noted that firing rates build up faster in association with strong motion and fast RT.”
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
“A putative neural correlate of this operation is evident in area LIP: for all RTs (and motion strengths), the firing rates of LIP neurons reach a stereotyped level shortly before the monkey initiates a saccade to indicate its choice for Tin (Fig. 2b, d and Supplementary Fig 2a, b).”
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
“The firing rate excursion on the 90° control task was nearly identical to that seen on the standard 2-choice task (Fig. 6d; mean difference 0.13±0.37 sp/s, p=0.53).”
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
“It is considerably larger for 2- than for 4-choice (Figure 4f 2-choice intercept 50.7±8.2 sp/s/s greater than 4-choice intercept, p<10−5, also see Discussion & Supplementary Fig. 6b,c).”
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
“The change in LIP buildup rates produced by a change in motion strength toward Tin is similar for 2- and 4-choice tasks (Fig. 4).”
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.
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
“Recall that before motion onset, activity on the 90°-control trials was slightly reduced in comparison with the standard 2-choice task.”
plaincorrelationaln = 29- 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.
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 difference in firing rates at the beginning and end of motion-viewing combined to make a total difference in firing rate excursion of 6.11±0.21 sp/s larger for 4-choice than for 2-choice (see Methods, Eq. 2).”
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
“The arrow indicates the mean difference (9.2±1.1 sp/s larger for 2-choice trials, p<10−5).”
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.
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 variance associated with RT groups reached a nadir in the interval 40 to 80 ms before the saccade.”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · plain
“The variance associated with RT groups reached a nadir in the interval 40 to 80 ms before the saccade.”
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.
- 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
“Second, responses to the T90 target on our screening saccade task were not lower than responses to the Tout target, as would be expected if they were in an inhibitory surround (Supplementary Fig. 1c).”
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.
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
“Third, the urgency, u(t), was stronger in 2- than 4-choice conditions.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some of these measures were affected by the number of choices 48,49 (Supplementary Fig. 8).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Arai, K., McPeek, R.M. & Keller, E.L. Properties of saccadic responses in monkey when multiple competing visual stimuli are present. J. Neurophysiol. 91, 890–900 (2004). source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Walker, R., Deubel, H., Schneider, W.X. & Findlay, J.M. Effect of remote distractors on saccade programming: evidence for an extended fixation zone. J. Neurophysiol. 78, 1108–1119 (1997). 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.
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
“Motion strength affects the buildup rates even for trials that terminate with the same saccadic choice.”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · plain
“Motion strength affects the buildup rates even for trials that terminate with the same saccadic choice.”
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.
- 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
“We observed a time-dependent buildup of firing rate that is not explained by evidence accumulation.”
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.
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
“Second, the rate of buildup in LIP that can be attributed to motion strength was similar on 2- and 4-choice configurations for motion toward Tin (Fig. 4) and for Tin choices (Supplementary Fig. 4).”
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
“Specifically, we observed a neural correlate of evidence accumulation in structures that represent the choice.”
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.
In the paper
“The model with urgency explains the longer RTs on error trials 36 (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Ditterich, J. Stochastic models of decisions about motion direction: behavior and physiology. Neural Netw. 19, 981–1012 (2006). source
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.
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 2- and 4-choice tasks, firing rate variance remained at a stable, low value until 190 ms after the onset of stimulus motion, after which it increased dramatically, reflecting the divergence of responses to different stimuli.”
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.
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
“Third, in two experiments, we observed a reduction in firing rate on the 4-choice task even when RFs were large enough to encompass the orthogonal targets in their excitatory regions (data not shown).”
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 model performed only slightly worse when T0 was constrained to be the same value for 2- and 4-choice conditions”
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.
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
“First, the firing rate at the decision’s end is similar in the 2- and 4-choice configurations.”
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
“Stronger motion was associated with larger buildup rates (note the positive slopes).”
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.
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 monkeys were unbiased in their choices on these trials in all three 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
“Based on the 4 traces shown, the rates seem to reach a common endpoint between 40–80 ms before the saccade.”
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.
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 error magnitude was only 1.41±0.1°.”
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.
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 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).”
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.
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 overall difference was negligible across our sample (mean percent difference = −0.59±0.46%; p=0.212).”
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.
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 time-dependent buildup of firing rate that is not explained by evidence accumulation.”
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.
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 less accurate saccades on the 4-choice task (mean percent difference = −4.87±2.03% p<0.03).”
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.
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 (9.2±1.1 sp/s larger for 2-choice trials, p<10−5).”
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.
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 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).”
plainn = 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.
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 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.
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”
plainn = 46- 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.
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 is the buildup seen on 0% coherence motion trials, when the momentary evidence is unbiased for Tin or Tout”
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
“Stronger motion was associated with lower buildup rates (note the negative slopes).”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The dip, observed in other studies 2,12–14, seems to mark the beginning of evidence accumulation.”
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 [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 [13] Sato, T. & Schall, J.D. Pre-excitatory pause in frontal eye field responses. Exp. Brain Res. 139, 53–58 (2001). source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Kiani, R., Hanks, T.D. & Shadlen, M.N. Bounded integration in parietal cortex underlies decisions even when viewing duration is dictated by the environment. J. Neurosci. 28, 3017–3029 (2008). source
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 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
“Further, on both tasks, we observed a time-dependent rise in firing rates that may impose a deadline for deciding.”
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.
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 this epoch retains much of the difference in firing rate seen before motion onset.”
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.
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
“Our results argue that the bounded accumulation framework can be extended to explain more complex decisions, and they begin to reveal how decision-making circuitry adjusts to increasingly difficult decisions.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This pattern of LIP activity in the 4-choice task is similar to the process underlying 2-choice decisions1,2,16.”
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 [16] Ratcliff, R. et al. Dual diffusion model for single-cell recording data from the superior colliculus in a brightness-discrimination task. J. Neurophysiol. 97, 1756–1774 (2007). 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.
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
“Analysis of variability across different RT groups provides quantitative support for a common firing rate close to the end of the trial (Supplementary Fig. 2b).”
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 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
“Therefore, the more frequent errors at low motion strengths on the 4-choice task may be attributed to a failure to discriminate the direction of motion rather than confusion about action selection.”
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.
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 differences appear to explain subjects’ accuracy and reaction times.”
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.
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 larger excursion suggests that subjects required more evidence before making a choice.”
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.
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 stereotyped firing rate may reflect a bound that is common to easy and difficult motion strengths.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, in the RT version, firing rates are similar at decision end when the monkey selects a target in the neuron’s RF, for all motion strengths and RTs.”
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
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 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
“These physiological observations constitute an effective strategy for handling increased task difficulty.”
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.
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 performance with strong motion reveals that the monkeys understood the relationship between stimulus direction and choice targets.”
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.
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 pattern is broadly consistent with a bounded accumulation of evidence among competing response mechanisms.”
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 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
“Although in any one experiment, either T90 direction might provide weak positive evidence for a Tin choice (e.g., Fig. 4e), the net effect of orthogonal motion is weak negative evidence, on average.”
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 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 difference in excursion is attributed to 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.
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
“As before, some of the buildup in firing rate on the 90°-control task is not attributed to an accumulation of motion evidence, because it is present even on trials with 0% motion strength.”
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 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 suggests that motion toward T90 constitutes weak evidence against the Tin choice.”
hedgedcorrelationaln = 29- 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 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
“For example, the larger excursion and less pronounced time-varying increase would lead to better accuracy on the 4-choice task, were it not for the larger number of choices.”
hedgeddirect- 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.
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 time-dependent rise is not explained by random fluctuations in motion energy because the increase was evident when trials ending in Tin and Tout choices were averaged together (as in Fig. 4a–d).”
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 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
“Because firing rates were already lower at the beginning of these trials, the persistence of this difference is only remarkable in contrast with the Tin choices.”
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.
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 analysis also suggests that LIP is only weakly affected by motion in directions orthogonal to the Tin–Tout axis on the 4-choice task.”
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.
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 preceding analyses expose the similarities and differences in how LIP activity reflects a bounded accumulation of evidence during 2 and 4 choice decisions.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We interpret this rise as a reflection of the cost associated with the passage of time, corresponding to the psychological sense of urgency, u(t) 17,18.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Reddi, B.A. & Carpenter, R.H. The influence of urgency on decision time. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 827–830 (2000). 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
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 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 termination of decisions is associated with a fixed firing rate when the monkey chooses the target in the RF.”
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 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, the angular separation between choice targets alone is, by itself, insufficient to cause an increase in firing rate excursion of the magnitude seen on the 4-choice task.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On a variety of 2-choice decision tasks, a threshold crossing is associated with termination of the decision 1,2,19.”
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 [19] Hanes, D.P. & Schall, J.D. Neural control of voluntary movement initiation. Science 274, 427–430 (1996). 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.
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
“Firing rates at the beginning and end of the motion-viewing period suggest that LIP neurons undergo a larger change in firing rate during decisions among 4 possible alternatives.”
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.
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
“Our findings suggest that this same bounded accumulation framework applies to decisions among 4 choices.”
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.
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 fit supports the hypothesis that the framework of bounded accumulation can be extended to explain decisions with more than 2 alternatives.”
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 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, the physiological differences on the 2- and 4-choice tasks are of the right size to explain the behavioral differences we observed.”
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.
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, differences in behavior are not explained by differences in the mapping of motion information onto a change in LIP 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 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 LIP registers evidence along the Tin–Tout axis similarly for 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 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 monkeys could afford to terminate choices using a more lax criterion — what we interpret as a shorter excursion to a termination bound—without increasing the average probability of error.”
hedged- 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.
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 identified this urgency signal as the time-dependent rise in firing rate that is seen on all trials regardless of motion strength and direction.”
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 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
“Our study suggests that some of the principles gleaned from simple binary decisions are likely to extend to decisions with more than 2 choices.”
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.
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
“Importantly, however, it demonstrates that the effect of motion strength on buildup rate is not explained by averaging over different proportions of correct and error trials.”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · boosted
“it demonstrates that the effect of motion strength on buildup rate is not explained by averaging over different proportions of correct and error trials.”
boosted- 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.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · boosted
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
“This oppositional relationship was demonstrated directly by stimulating MT neurons and measuring the effect on choice and RT.”
boosteddirect- 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.
In the paper
“in the framework of bounded accumulation 17, it causes decisions to terminate as time elapses, regardless of the evidence.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Reddi, B.A. & Carpenter, R.H. The influence of urgency on decision time. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 827–830 (2000). 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.
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 the lower starting point implies a larger excursion in firing rate from start to end of the decision.”
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.
In the paper
“A major difference between 2- and 4-choice responses was the firing rate at the beginning of the decision process (Fig. 3), consistent with the inverse relationship between the number of possible eye movement directions and firing rates in the superior colliculus preceding a saccade instruction 30.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Basso, M.A. & Wurtz, R.H. Modulation of neuronal activity in superior colliculus by changes in target probability. J. Neurosci. 18, 7519–7534 (1998). 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.
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 amplifies the effective difference in excursion between the conditions because it effectively shrinks the excursion: less of the range of LIP firing rates between start and end is used to represent the accumulated 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.
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 think the reduction in firing rate on 4-choice is unlikely to be due to a low-level factor, such as the presence of a target in the neuron’s inhibitory surround.”
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.
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 graphs support the existence of a bound in firing rate that marks the termination of trials.”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · plain
“The graphs support the existence of a bound in firing rate that marks the termination of trials.”
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.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Materials · plain
In the paper
“When human subjects perform the 2-choice motion task, they appear to adjust the bound (or excursion) when they trade off speed and accuracy3.”
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
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.
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
“Here, however, our easy set of motion strengths rendered fast decisions less costly in the 2-choice task.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, no inhibitory surround is seen in LIP RFs 31,32.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Platt, M.L. & Glimcher, P.W. Response fields of intraparietal neurons quantified with multiple saccadic targets. Exp. Brain Res. 121, 65–75 (1998). source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Ben Hamed, S., Duhamel, J.R., Bremmer, F. & Graf, W. Visual receptive field modulation in the lateral intraparietal area during attentive fixation and free gaze. Cereb. Cortex 12, 234–245 (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 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 our 4-choice task, this lower firing rate at the decision’s beginning confers a higher bound for terminating the decision.”
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.
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
“Our results suggest that the computation that LIP performs on the motion signals it receives from MT (and elsewhere) is similar in the 2- and 4-choice tasks.”
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.
In the paper
“According to the model, the longer RT on errors arises as a consequence of the urgency signal, u(t), which effectively imposes a more lax criterion for terminating the decision (as if the bound were dropping as a function of time), thereby rendering errors more frequent36.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Ditterich, J. Stochastic models of decisions about motion direction: behavior and physiology. Neural Netw. 19, 981–1012 (2006). source
plaindirectn = 70- 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 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
“In addition, the observed bound on the accumulation ties together in a single mechanism the content of a decision with the time required to make it.”
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 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 bounded accumulation model explains the RTs measured on error trials.”
plaindirectn = 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.
- 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
“This rules out the possibility that the difference in excursion was compensated by a change in the scaling of accumulated evidence into units of LIP firing rate.”
boosted- 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 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 framework of bounded accumulation, a larger excursion improves signal to noise at decision termination—or equivalently, reduces uncertainty—at the expense of decision time.”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In the two-choice task, LIP neurons seem to reflect the difference in firing rates between neurons tuned to two opposing directions of motion21.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Ditterich, J., Mazurek, M.E. & Shadlen, M.N. Microstimulation of visual cortex affects the speed of perceptual decisions. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 891–898 (2003). source
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 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 4-choice task, time is costly.”
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 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
“It is an essential feature of the model used to explain choice and RT in these experiments.”
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.
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
“No reliable bias was found. For 2-choice trials, the number of Tin and Tout choices was 1452 vs. 1387 (p=0.22, Binomial distribution, H0:p = 0.5). For 4-choice trials, the number of Tin, Tout, T+90, and T−9 was 1461, 1421, 1387, and 1426 (p=0.65, χ2 test, H0: equal proportions).”
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
“because the monkeys were unbiased in their choices on these trials in all three 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.
- Also stated in: § Supplementary Material · plain
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
“suggesting that they are not in a suppressive region of the RF or its surround.”
hedgedn = 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. 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
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
