Dataset Information

Flexibility of Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making.

ABSTRACT: To understand the neural mechanisms that support decision making, it is critical to characterize the timescale of evidence evaluation. Recent work has shown that subjects can adaptively adjust the timescale of evidence evaluation across blocks of trials depending on context [1]. However, it's currently unknown if adjustments to evidence evaluation occur online during deliberations based on a single stream of evidence. To examine this question, we employed a change-detection task in which subjects report their level of confidence in judging whether there has been a change in a stochastic auditory stimulus. Using a combination of psychophysical reverse correlation analyses and single-trial behavioral modeling, we compared the time period over which sensory information has leverage on detection report choices versus confidence. We demonstrate that the length of this period differs on separate sets of trials based on what's being reported. Surprisingly, confidence judgments on trials with no detection report are influenced by evidence occurring earlier than the time period of influence for detection reports. Our findings call into question models of decision formation involving static parameters that yield a singular timescale of evidence evaluation and instead suggest that the brain represents and utilizes multiple timescales of evidence evaluation during deliberation.

SUBMITTER: Ganupuru P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7852380 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Flexibility of Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making.

Ganupuru Preetham P Goldring Adam B AB Harun Rashed R Hanks Timothy D TD

Current biology : CB 20190606 12

To understand the neural mechanisms that support decision making, it is critical to characterize the timescale of evidence evaluation. Recent work has shown that subjects can adaptively adjust the timescale of evidence evaluation across blocks of trials depending on context [1]. However, it's currently unknown if adjustments to evidence evaluation occur online during deliberations based on a single stream of evidence. To examine this question, we employed a change-detection task in which subject ...[more]

PMID: 31178325

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-informed Decision-making in Nutrition and Health (EVIDENT) is an international partnership that seeks to identify information needs in nutrition and health in Africa and build local capacity in knowledge management to help translate the best available evidence into context-appropriate recommendations aligned to the priorities of decision-makers. This study evaluates the extent to which EVIDENT achieved its intended activities, documents the lessons learned and draws on these lessons learned to inform future activities of EVIDENT, as well as in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in nutrition overall. METHODS:Purposive and snowball sampling were used to identify participants that were either directly or indirectly involved with EVIDENT. An analytical framework of five key elements was developed to guide data collection from EVIDENT's documentation, in-depth interviews (n?= 20), online surveys (n?=?26) and a participatory discussion. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in NVivo 11, using deductive thematic content analysis and a phenomenological approach. Online surveys were analysed using Stata 14. Data were triangulated to address both objectives under each element of the analytical framework. RESULTS:EVIDENT succeeded in establishing a collaborative partnership, within which it delivered four short courses in EIDM. This capacity complemented case study activities in four partner African countries where EIDM processes were implemented and assessed. Identified barriers to these processes included little experience in EIDM, difficulties in engaging stakeholders, challenging local environments (e.g. donor influence, bureaucracy, inaccessibility to scientific research, poor internet connectivity), and limited time and funding. However, EVIDENT activities were driven by a local need for EIDM, a sheer interest and commitment to the cause, and the opportunity for the Global North and South to work together and build relationships. Future activities of EVIDENT, and EIDM in nutrition overall, should focus on sustained capacity-building in EIDM processes, leadership and functional skills across the Global South, investment in stakeholder engagement, context-specific EIDM, enhanced communication and linking, and strengthening relationships with existing stakeholder organisations. CONCLUSIONS:In its first 3 years, EVIDENT developed and strengthened partnership, capacity and visibility on EIDM in Africa. Innovative and long-term capacity-building, dedicated leadership, further stakeholder engagement and sustainable financing, are needed for future activities of EVIDENT and EIDM in nutrition.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Dataset Information

Flexibility of Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making.

Publications

Flexibility of Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets