4.2 Article

Serial Decision-Making in Monkeys During an Oculomotor Task

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xan0000154

关键词

decision-making; Macaca mulatta; executive control; congruency effects; switching costs

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1539687]
  2. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  3. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1539687] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Much of everyday behavior involves serial decision-making, in which the outcome of 1 choice affects another. An example is setting rules for oneself: choosing a behavioral rule guides appropriate choices in the future. How the brain links decisions across time is poorly understood. Neural mechanisms could be studied in monkeys, as it is known that they can select and use behavioral rules, but existing psychophysical paradigms are poorly suited for the constraints of neurophysiology. Therefore, we designed a streamlined task that requires sequential, linked decisions, and trained 2 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to perform it. The task features trial-by-trial consistency, visual stimuli, and eye movement responses to optimize it for simultaneous electrophysiological inquiry. In the first stage of each trial, the monkeys selected a rule or a rule was provided to them. In the second stage, they used the rule to discriminate between 2 test stimuli. Our hypotheses were that they could use self-selected rules and could deliberately select rules based on reinforcement history. We found that the monkeys were as proficient at using self-selected rules as instructed rules. Their preferences for selecting rules correlated with their performance in using them, consistent with systematic, rather than random, strategies for accomplishing the task. The results confirm and extend prior findings on rule selection in monkeys and establish a viable, experimentally flexible paradigm for studying the neural basis of serial decision-making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据