↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Pavlovian-Instrumental Interaction in ‘Observing Behavior’

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Pavlovian-Instrumental Interaction in ‘Observing Behavior’
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrik R. Beierholm, Peter Dayan

Abstract

Subjects typically choose to be presented with stimuli that predict the existence of future reinforcements. This so-called 'observing behavior' is evident in many species under various experimental conditions, including if the choice is expensive, or if there is nothing that subjects can do to improve their lot with the information gained. A recent study showed that the activities of putative midbrain dopamine neurons reflect this preference for observation in a way that appears to challenge the common prediction-error interpretation of these neurons. In this paper, we provide an alternative account according to which observing behavior arises from a small, possibly Pavlovian, bias associated with the operation of working memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 5%
United Kingdom 3 3%
Brazil 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 90 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 28%
Researcher 26 25%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 25%
Computer Science 10 10%
Neuroscience 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 11 11%