Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42517869›Full record

ArticleeLife2026

Behavioral signatures of post-decisional attention in preferential choice.

Ariel Zylberberg, Ian Krajbich, Michael N Shadlen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ariel ZylberbergMortimer B Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2572-4748
Ian KrajbichDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6618-5675
Michael N ShadlenMortimer B Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2002-2210

Funding

Computational and circuit mechanisms of decision makingR01NS113113 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SHADLEN, MICHAEL NEIL · 2019 to 2023
$2.2M
NIH HHS R01NS113113NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS113113United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research FA9550-22-1-0337U.S. National Science Foundation 2333979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attention plays a key role in decision-making by directing limited cognitive resources to relevant information. It has been proposed that attention also biases the decision process, due to a multiplicative interaction between attention and subjective value (e.g., Krajbich et al., 2010). We tested two predictions of models that posit a causal multiplicative effect of attention on decision formation: (i) the last fixation should be more informative about the choice when the overall value of the alternatives is high, and (ii) more attention should be directed to the chosen option when choices conflict with stated preferences than when they do not. Reanalyzing several datasets from a food-choice task, we found no evidence supporting these predictions. An alternative model where attention reflects choices after the decision has completed explains key observations, including the last-fixation bias, the gaze-cascade effect, and the effect of the overall value of the alternatives on response times. However, this model does not fully account for the association between dwell time and choice. We conclude that gaze behavior prior to the choice report likely reflects both decisional and post-decisional processes.

Indexed as

AttentionChoice BehaviorDecision MakingFixation, OcularHumansReaction Timeattentional drift-diffusion modeldecision-makinggaze patternshumanneurosciencevalue-based decisionsvisual attention

Identifiers

PMID42517869
PMCPMC13412323

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.