Cited by 222Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

A neural mechanism of speed-accuracy tradeoff in macaque area LIP

Open access
Hanks, Timothy, Kiani, Roozbeh, Shadlen, Michael N·2014·eLife

Abstract

Decision making often involves a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Previous studies indicate that neural activity in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) represents the gradual accumulation of evidence toward a threshold level, or evidence bound, which terminates the decision process. The level of this bound is hypothesized to mediate the speed-accuracy tradeoff. To test this, we recorded from LIP while monkeys performed a motion discrimination task in two speed-accuracy regimes. Surprisingly, the terminating threshold levels of neural activity were similar in both regimes. However, neurons recorded in the faster regime exhibited stronger evidence-independent activation from the beginning of decision formation, effectively reducing the evidence-dependent neural modulation needed for choice commitment. Our results suggest that control of speed vs accuracy may be exerted through changes in decision-related neural activity itself rather than through changes in the threshold applied to such neural activity to terminate a decision.

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 · 10.7554/elife.02260

Cites

56 of 56 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?

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
Hanks, T., Kiani, R., & Shadlen, M. N.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hanks, Timothy
  • Shadlen, Michael N
Venue
eLife
Published
2014-05-27
Volume
3
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170716773
Cited by
222
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 3
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Eye Institute (EY11378)
  • Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0067/2011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
speed-accuracy trade-off, lateral intraparietal area, decision-making, evidence accumulation, decision threshold, motion discrimination, macaque
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Macaca, Models, Neurological, Motion Perception, Neurons, Neurophysiology, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results

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