Cited by 290Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Neural Coding of Uncertainty and Probability

Open access
Ma, Wei Ji, Jazayeri, Mehrdad·2014·Annual Review of Neuroscience

Abstract

Organisms must act in the face of sensory, motor, and reward uncertainty stemming from a pandemonium of stochasticity and missing information. In many tasks, organisms can make better decisions if they have at their disposal a representation of the uncertainty associated with task-relevant variables. We formalize this problem using Bayesian decision theory and review recent behavioral and neural evidence that the brain may use knowledge of uncertainty, confidence, and probability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014017

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Bayesian decision theory provides a general and often quantitatively accurate account of perceptual decisions in a wide variety of tasks.

    “Bayesian decision theory provides a general and often quantitatively accurate account of perceptual decisions in a wide variety of tasks [16–18].”

    From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Theory of Probabilistic Computation section presents Bayesian decision theory as a general framework for decisions, and Behavioral Evidence for Probabilistic Computation describes near-optimal behavior across several perceptual tasks. The passages support its breadth, but do not establish the claim that it provides an often quantitatively accurate account of perceptual decisions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, W. J., & Jazayeri, M.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
Corresponding author
Ma, Wei Ji
Venue
Annual Review of Neuroscience
Published
2014-07-08
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
205-220
ISSN
  • 0147-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4126
OpenAlex
W2157745749
Cited by
290
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
probability representation, Bayesian decision theory, confidence, decision making under uncertainty, sensory uncertainty, reward uncertainty, Bayesian brain
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Probability, Uncertainty

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