Cited by 1,408Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice

Krajbich, Ian, Armel, Carrie, Rangel, Antonio·2010·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Most organisms facing a choice between multiple stimuli will look repeatedly at them, presumably implementing a comparison process between the items' values. Little is known about the nature of the comparison process in value-based decision-making or about the role of visual fixations in this process. We created a computational model of value-based binary choice in which fixations guide the comparison process and tested it on humans using eye-tracking. We found that the model can quantitatively explain complex relationships between fixation patterns and choices, as well as several fixation-driven decision biases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.2635

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Models describing links between attention and decision formation share the theme that attention influences accumulation of evidence toward the attended option, making the subject more likely to select that option.

    “A common theme in these models is that attention influences the accumulation of evidence toward the attended option, making the subject more likely to select that option (Krajbich et al., 2010).”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Krajbich et al., 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Rangel, Antonio
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2010-09-12
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
1292-1298
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2150025966
Cited by
1,408
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 152 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 34
FWCI
23.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2011-08-26)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visual fixation, value-based decision making, value comparison, binary choice, computational model, fixation patterns, decision bias, eye movements
MeSH terms
Attention, Choice Behavior, Computer Simulation, Fixation, Ocular, Food Preferences, Humans, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Reaction Time, Students, Time Factors, Universities, Bias, Chi-Square Distribution, Likelihood Functions, Dominance, Ocular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review