Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deciding When to Decide: Time-Variant Sequential Sampling Models Explain the Emergence of Value-Based Decisions in the Human Brain

Open access
Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., Buchel, C.·2012·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The cognitive and neuronal mechanisms of perceptual decision making have been successfully linked to sequential sampling models. These models describe the decision process as a gradual accumulation of sensory evidence over time. The temporal evolution of economic choices, however, remains largely unexplored. We tested whether sequential sampling models help to understand the formation of value-based decisions in terms of behavior and brain responses. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity while human participants performed a buying task in which they freely decided upon how and when to choose. Behavior was accurately predicted by a time-variant sequential sampling model that uses a decreasing rather than fixed decision threshold to estimate the time point of the decision. Presupplementary motor area, caudate nucleus, and anterior insula activation was associated with the accumulation of evidence over time. Furthermore, at the beginning of the decision process the fMRI signal in these regions accounted for trial-by-trial deviations from behavioral model predictions: relatively high activation preceded relatively early responses. The updating of value information was correlated with signals in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, left and right orbitofrontal cortex, and ventral striatum but also in the primary motor cortex well before the response itself. Our results support a view of value-based decisions as emerging from sequential sampling of evidence and suggest a close link between the accumulation process and activity in the motor system when people are free to respond at any time.

Overview

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0727-12.2012

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Buchel, C.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-08-01
Volume
32
Issue
31
Pages
10686-10698
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2104261508
Cited by
181
References
20
FWCI
6.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deciding When to Decide: Time-Variant Sequential Sampling Models Explain the Emergence of Value-Based Decisions in the Human Brain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.0727-12.2012
The paper
Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Buchel, C. (2012). Deciding When to Decide: Time-Variant Sequential Sampling Models Explain the Emergence of Value-Based Decisions in the Human Brain. Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0727-12.2012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.