Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 421

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bias in the Brain: A Diffusion Model Analysis of Prior Probability and Potential Payoff

Open access
Mulder, Martijn J., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Ratcliff, Roger, Boekel, Wouter, Forstmann, Birte U.·2012·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

In perceptual decision-making, advance knowledge biases people toward choice alternatives that are more likely to be correct and more likely to be profitable. Accumulation-to-bound models provide two possible explanations for these effects: prior knowledge about the relative attractiveness of the alternatives at hand changes either the starting point of the decision process, or the rate of evidence accumulation. Here, we used model-based functional MRI to investigate whether these effects are similar for different types of prior knowledge, and whether there is a common neural substrate underlying bias in simple perceptual choices. We used two versions of the random-dot motion paradigm in which we manipulated bias by: (1) changing the prior likelihood of occurrence for two alternatives (“prior probability”) and (2) assigning a larger reward to one of two alternatives (“potential payoff”). Human subjects performed the task inside and outside a 3T MRI scanner. For each manipulation, bias was quantified by fitting the drift diffusion model to the behavioral data. Individual measurements of bias were then used in the imaging analyses to identify regions involved in biasing choice behavior. Behavioral results showed that subjects tended to make more and faster choices toward the alternative that was most probable or had the largest payoff. This effect was primarily due to a change in the starting point of the accumulation process. Imaging results showed that, at cue level, regions of the frontoparietal network are involved in changing the starting points in both manipulations, suggesting a common mechanism underlying the biasing effects of prior knowledge.

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.4156-11.2012

Cites

13 of 13 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 13 references

Cited by

See all 421

Metadata

Authors
Mulder, M. J., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., Boekel, W., & Forstmann, B. U.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-02-14
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
2335-2343
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2067894784
Cited by
421
References
13
FWCI
12.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Bias in the Brain: A Diffusion Model Analysis of Prior Probability and Potential Payoff. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.4156-11.2012
The paper
Mulder, M. J., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., Boekel, W., & Forstmann, B. U. (2012). Bias in the Brain: A Diffusion Model Analysis of Prior Probability and Potential Payoff. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4156-11.2012

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.