Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.

A central question in cognitive neuroscience regards the means by which options are compared and decisions are resolved during value-guided choice. It is clear that several component processes are needed; these include identifying options, a value-based comparison, and implementation of actions to e...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Laurence T Hunt, Mark W Woolrich, Matthew F S Rushworth, Timothy E J Behrens
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/84041b507bcd475487c44a9a2e54e507
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:84041b507bcd475487c44a9a2e54e507
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:84041b507bcd475487c44a9a2e54e5072021-11-18T05:53:35ZTrial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.1553-734X1553-735810.1371/journal.pcbi.1003225https://doaj.org/article/84041b507bcd475487c44a9a2e54e5072013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24068906/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1553-734Xhttps://doaj.org/toc/1553-7358A central question in cognitive neuroscience regards the means by which options are compared and decisions are resolved during value-guided choice. It is clear that several component processes are needed; these include identifying options, a value-based comparison, and implementation of actions to execute the decision. What is less clear is the temporal precedence and functional organisation of these component processes in the brain. Competing models of decision making have proposed that value comparison may occur in the space of alternative actions, or in the space of abstract goods. We hypothesized that the signals observed might in fact depend upon the framing of the decision. We recorded magnetoencephalographic data from humans performing value-guided choices in which two closely related trial types were interleaved. In the first trial type, each option was revealed separately, potentially causing subjects to estimate each action's value as it was revealed and perform comparison in action-space. In the second trial type, both options were presented simultaneously, potentially leading to comparison in abstract goods-space prior to commitment to a specific action. Distinct activity patterns (in distinct brain regions) on the two trial types demonstrated that the observed frame of reference used for decision making indeed differed, despite the information presented being formally identical, between the two trial types. This provides a potential reconciliation of conflicting accounts of value-guided choice.Laurence T HuntMark W WoolrichMatthew F S RushworthTimothy E J BehrensPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleBiology (General)QH301-705.5ENPLoS Computational Biology, Vol 9, Iss 9, p e1003225 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
spellingShingle	Biology (General) QH301-705.5 Laurence T Hunt Mark W Woolrich Matthew F S Rushworth Timothy E J Behrens Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
description	A central question in cognitive neuroscience regards the means by which options are compared and decisions are resolved during value-guided choice. It is clear that several component processes are needed; these include identifying options, a value-based comparison, and implementation of actions to execute the decision. What is less clear is the temporal precedence and functional organisation of these component processes in the brain. Competing models of decision making have proposed that value comparison may occur in the space of alternative actions, or in the space of abstract goods. We hypothesized that the signals observed might in fact depend upon the framing of the decision. We recorded magnetoencephalographic data from humans performing value-guided choices in which two closely related trial types were interleaved. In the first trial type, each option was revealed separately, potentially causing subjects to estimate each action's value as it was revealed and perform comparison in action-space. In the second trial type, both options were presented simultaneously, potentially leading to comparison in abstract goods-space prior to commitment to a specific action. Distinct activity patterns (in distinct brain regions) on the two trial types demonstrated that the observed frame of reference used for decision making indeed differed, despite the information presented being formally identical, between the two trial types. This provides a potential reconciliation of conflicting accounts of value-guided choice.
format	article
author	Laurence T Hunt Mark W Woolrich Matthew F S Rushworth Timothy E J Behrens
author_facet	Laurence T Hunt Mark W Woolrich Matthew F S Rushworth Timothy E J Behrens
author_sort	Laurence T Hunt
title	Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
title_short	Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
title_full	Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
title_fullStr	Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
title_full_unstemmed	Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
title_sort	trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/84041b507bcd475487c44a9a2e54e507
work_keys_str_mv	AT laurencethunt trialtypedependentframesofreferenceforvaluecomparison AT markwwoolrich trialtypedependentframesofreferenceforvaluecomparison AT matthewfsrushworth trialtypedependentframesofreferenceforvaluecomparison AT timothyejbehrens trialtypedependentframesofreferenceforvaluecomparison
_version_	1718424677793136640

Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison.

Ejemplares similares