Cited by 95Neural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Confidence-Related Decision Making

Insabato, Andrea, Pannunzi, Mario, Rolls, Edmund T., Deco, Gustavo·2010·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Neurons have been recorded that reflect in their firing rates the confidence in a decision. Here we show how this could arise as an emergent property in an integrate-and-fire attractor network model of decision making. The attractor network has populations of neurons that respond to each of the possible choices, each biased by the evidence for that choice, and there is competition between the attractor states until one population wins the competition and finishes with high firing that represents the decision. Noise resulting from the random spiking times of individual neurons makes the decision making probabilistic. We also show that a second attractor network can make decisions based on the confidence in the first decision. This system is supported by and accounts for neuronal responses recorded during decision making and makes predictions about the neuronal activity that will be found when a decision is made about whether to stay with a first decision or to abort the trial and start again. The research shows how monitoring can be performed in the brain and this has many implications for understanding cognitive functioning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.01068.2009

Cites

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?

  • rRLPFC might play a domain-general role in metacognitive evaluation of decision-making.

    “This pattern of findings suggests that rRLPFC might play a domain-general role in metacognitive evaluation of decision-making, supporting the notion of segregated neural process governing metacognitive access22,24,26.”

    From Confidence in value-based choice (2013) · cites this paper as [22]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 95

Authors
Insabato, A., Pannunzi, M., Rolls, E. T., & Deco, G.
Affiliations
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Rolls, Edmund T.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2010-07
Volume
104
Issue
1
Pages
539-547
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2136949070
Cited by
95
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
decision-making, confidence, attractor networks, integrate-and-fire neurons, evidence accumulation, probabilistic decision making, neural noise, decision confidence, emergent properties
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Attitude, Brain, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Synapses, Neural Networks, Computer, Receptors, GABA, Receptors, AMPA, Electrophysiological Phenomena

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