how costs influence decision values for mixed outcomes
Clicks: 238
ID: 248653
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
238 views
46 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #263 of 403 articles by views in Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 403 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The things that we hold dearest often require a sacrifice, as epitomized in the maxim ‘no pain, no gain’. But how is the subjective value of outcomes established when they consist of mixtures of costs and benefits? We describe theoretical models for the integration of costs and benefits into a single value, drawing on both the economic and the empirical literatures, with the goal of rendering them accessible to the neuroscience community. We propose two key assays that go beyond goodness of fit for deciding between the dominant additive model and four varieties of interactive models. First, how they model decisions between costs when reward is not on offer; and second, whether they predict changes in reward sensitivity when costs are added to outcomes, and in what direction. We provide a selective review of relevant neurobiological work from a computational perspective, focusing on those studies that illuminate the underlying valuation mechanisms. Cognitive neuroscience has great potential to decide which of the theoretical models is actually employed by our brains, but empirical work has yet to fully embrace this challenge. We hope that future research would improve our understanding of how our brain decides whether mixed outcomes are worthwhile.
| Reference Key |
etalmi2012frontiershow
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Deborah eTalmi;Alex ePine |
| Journal | Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fnins.2012.00146
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.