Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37883173›Full record

ArticleeLife2023

Quantifying decision-making in dynamic, continuously evolving environments.

Maria Ruesseler, Lilian Aline Weber, Tom Rhys Marshall, Jill O'Reilly, Laurence Tudor Hunt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neural mechanisms of flexible perceptual inference.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Target Selection Signals Causally Influence Human Perceptual Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Continuous psychophysics: past, present, future.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence for a Primary Prior Deficit as a Mechanism of Auditory Hallucinations.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maria Ruesseler *Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA) University Department of Psychiatry Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Lilian Aline Weber *Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA) University Department of Psychiatry Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9727-9623
Tom Rhys MarshallDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Anna Watts Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jill O'ReillyDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Anna Watts Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Laurence Tudor HuntWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA) University Department of Psychiatry Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8393-8533

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L019639/1Medical Research Council MR/T031344/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 109064/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 208789/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During perceptual decision-making tasks, centroparietal electroencephalographic (EEG) potentials report an evidence accumulation-to-bound process that is time locked to trial onset. However, decisions in real-world environments are rarely confined to discrete trials; they instead unfold continuously, with accumulation of time-varying evidence being recency-weighted towards its immediate past. The neural mechanisms supporting recency-weighted continuous decision-making remain unclear. Here, we use a novel continuous task design to study how the centroparietal positivity (CPP) adapts to different environments that place different constraints on evidence accumulation. We show that adaptations in evidence weighting to these different environments are reflected in changes in the CPP. The CPP becomes more sensitive to fluctuations in sensory evidence when large shifts in evidence are less frequent, and the potential is primarily sensitive to fluctuations in decision-relevant (not decision-irrelevant) sensory input. A complementary triphasic component over occipito-parietal cortex encodes the sum of recently accumulated sensory evidence, and its magnitude covaries with parameters describing how different individuals integrate sensory evidence over time. A computational model based on leaky evidence accumulation suggests that these findings can be accounted for by a shift in decision threshold between different environments, which is also reflected in the magnitude of pre-decision EEG activity. Our findings reveal how adaptations in EEG responses reflect flexibility in evidence accumulation to the statistics of dynamic sensory environments.

Indexed as

Decision MakingElectroencephalographyHumansParietal LobeReaction Timedecision-makingEEGhumanneurosciencerandom dot kinetogramtemporal response function

Identifiers

PMID37883173
PMCPMC10602589

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.