The (Neural) Dynamics of Stochastic Choice

References

• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2017) Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. J. Political Econom. 125(1):40–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apesteguia J, Ballester MÁ (2018) Monotone stochastic choice models: The case of risk and time preferences. J. Political Econom. 126(1):74–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartra O, McGuire JT, Kable JW (2013) The valuation system: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. NeuroImage 76:412–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Basten U, Biele G, Heekeren HR, Fiebach CJ (2010) How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107(50):21767–21772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Batley R (2008) On ordinal utility, cardinal utility and random utility. Theory Decision 64(1):37–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beck JM, Ma WJ, Kiani R, Hanks TD, Churchland AK, Roitman JD, Shadlen MN, Latham PE, Pouget A (2008) Probabilistic population codes for Bayesian decision making. Neuron 60(6):1142–1152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1963) Stochastic models of choice behavior. Behavioral Sci. 8(1):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernheim BD (2009) On the potential of neuroeconomics: A critical (but hopeful) appraisal. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 1(2):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 63(4):841–891.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry ST, Haile PA (2014) Identification in differentiated products markets using market level data. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 82(5):1749–1797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Block HD, Marschak J (1959) Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 66, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
• Bogacz R, Usher M, Zhang J, McClelland JL (2007) Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: Multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice. Philos. Transactions Roy. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 362(1485):1655–1670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen JD (2006) The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psych. Rev. 113(4):700–765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Salience and consumer choice. J. Political Econom. 121(5):803–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Britten KH, Shadlen MN, Newsome WT, Movshon JA (1992) The analysis of visual motion: A comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. J. Neuroscience 12(12):4745–4765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buschena D, Zilberman D (2000) Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 20(1):67–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer JR, Townsend J (1992) Fundamental derivations from decision field theory. Math. Soc. Sci. 23(3):255–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Ho TH (1994) Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. J. Risk Uncertainty 8(2):167–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M (2015) Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(7):2183–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Churchland AK, Kiani R, Shadlen MN (2008) Decision-making with multiple alternatives. Nature Neuroscience 11(6):693–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cisek P (2006) Integrated neural processes for defining potential actions and deciding between them: A computational model. J. Neuroscience 26(38):9761–9770.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cisek P, Puskas GA, El-Murr S (2009) Decisions in changing conditions: The urgency-gating model. J. Neuroscience 29(37):11560–11571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clithero JA (2018) Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 148(April):344–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clithero JA, Rangel A (2014) Informatic parcellation of the network involved in the computation of subjective value. Soc. Cognitive Affective Neuroscience 9(9):1289–1302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox DR, Miller HD (1965) The Theory of Stochastic Processes (Chapman & Hall, New York).Google Scholar
• Dagsvik JK (1995) How large is the class of generalized extreme value random utility models? J. Math. Psych. 39(1):90–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Brown N, Park S, Regenwetter M (2017) Recasting a biologically motivated computational model within a Fechnerian and random utility framework. J. Math. Psych. 77(April):156–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dean M (2013) What can neuroeconomics tell us about economics (and vice versa). Crowley PH, Zentall TR, eds. Comparative Decision Making (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 163–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Debreu G (1960) Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis by R. Duncan Luce. Amer. Econom. Rev. 50(1):186–188.Google Scholar
• Ditterich J (2010) A Comparison between mechanisms of multi-alternative perceptual decision making: Ability to explain human behavior, predictions for neurophysiology, and relationship with decision theory. Frontiers Neuroscience 4(184):1–24.Google Scholar
• Ditterich J, Churchland AK (2012) New advances in understanding decisions among multiple alternatives. Current Opinion Neurobiol. 22:1–7.Google Scholar
• Domenech P, Redouté J, Koechlin E, Dreher JC (2017) The neuro-computational architecture of value-based selection in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drugowitsch J, Pouget A (2012) Probabilistic versus non-probabilistic approaches to the neurobiology of perceptual decision-making. Current Opinion Neurobiol. 22(6):963–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drugowitsch J, Moreno-Bote R, Churchland AK, Shadlen MN, Pouget A (2012) The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making. J. Neuroscience 32(11):3612–3628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falmagne JC (1978) A representation theorem for finite random scale systems. J. Math. Psych. 18(1):52–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falmagne JC (1985) Elements of Psychophysical Theory (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. 29(3):393–421.Link, Google Scholar
• Frydman C, Nave G (2017) Extrapolative beliefs in perceptual and economic decisions: Evidence of a common mechanism. Management Sci. 63(7):2340–2352.Link, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Strack P, Strzalecki T (2017) Speed, accuracy, and the optimal timing of choices. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/tomasz/files/manuscript-1.pdf.Google Scholar
• Furman M, Wang XJ (2008) Similarity effect and optimal control of multiple-choice decision making. Neuron 60(6):1153–1168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glimcher PW (2005) Indeterminacy in brain and behavior. Annual Rev. Psych. 56(1):25–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2000) Representation of a perceptual decision in developing oculomotor commands. Nature 404(6776):390–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2002) Banburismus and the brain: Decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron 36(2):299–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2007) The neural basis of decision making. Annual Rev. Neuroscience 30:535–574.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Haile P, Hortaçsu A, Kosenok G (2008) On the empirical content of quantal response equilibrium. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(1):180–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanks TD, Mazurek ME, Kiani R, Hopp E, Shadlen MN (2011) Elapsed decision time affects the weighting of prior probability in a perceptual decision task. J. Neuroscience 31(17):6339–6352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hare TA, Schultz W, Camerer CF, O’Doherty JP, Rangel A (2011) Transformation of stimulus value signals into motor commands during simple choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(44):18120–18125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW (2008) Neuroeconomics: A critical reconsideration. Econom. Philos. 24(3):303–344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Rutstrom EE (2008) Risk aversion in the laboratory. Cox JC, Harrison GW, eds. Risk Aversion in Experiments (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 41–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausman JA, Wise DA (1978) A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 46(2):403–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heitz RP, Schall JD (2012) Neural mechanisms of speed-accuracy tradeoff. Neuron 76(3):616–628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD (1995) Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3–4):633–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD (2005) Why we should not be silent about noise. Experiment. Econom. 8(4):325–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica J. Econometric Soc. 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunt LT, Kolling N, Soltani A, Woolrich MW, Rushworth MFS, Behrens TEJ (2012) Mechanisms underlying cortical activity during value-guided choice. Nature Neuroscience 15(3):470–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiani R, Shadlen MN (2009) Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science 324(5928):759–764.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiani R, Corthell L, Shadlen MN (2014) Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time. Neuron 84(6):1329–1342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiani R, Hanks TD, Shadlen MN (2008) Bounded integration in parietal cortex underlies decisions even when viewing duration is dictated by the environment. J. Neuroscience 28(12):3017–3029.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Dean M (2015) How can neuroscience inform economics? Current Opinion Behavioral Sci. 5:51–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Rangel A (2011) Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(33):13852–13857.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A (2010) Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience 13(10):1292–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Oud B, Fehr E (2014) Benefits of neuroeconomic modeling: New policy interventions and predictors of preference. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(5):501–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levy D, Glimcher PW (2011) Comparing apples and oranges: Using reward-specific and reward-general subjective value representation in the brain. J. Neuroscience 31(41):14693–14707.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liston DB, Stone LS (2013) Saccadic brightness decisions do not use a difference model. J. Vision 13(8):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G (2005) Modelling the stochastic component of behaviour in experiments: Some issues for the interpretation of data. Experiment. Econom. 8(4):301–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1995) Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3–4):641–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louie K, Glimcher PW, Webb R (2015) Adaptive neural coding: From biological to behavioral decision-making. Current Opinion Behavioral Sci. 5:91–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Street D, Carson R, Ainslie A, DeShazo JR, Cameron T, Hensher D, Kohn R, Marley AAJ (2002) Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Lett. 13(3):177–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1986) Response Times (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Luce RD, Bush R, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 3 (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 249–410.Google Scholar
• Mainen ZF, Sejnowski TJ (1995) Reliability of spike timing in neocortical neurons. Science 268(5216):1503–1506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marley AAJ, Colonius H (1992) The “horse race” random utility model for choice probabilities and reaction times, and its competing risks interpretation. J. Math. Psych. 36(1):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazurek ME, Roitman JD, Ditterich J, Shadlen MN (2003) A role for neural integrators in perceptual decision making. Cerebral Cortex 13(11):1257–1269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (1973) Conditaional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (1981) Structural discrete probability models derived from theories of choice. Manski CF, McFadden DL, eds. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data and Econometric Applications (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 198–272.Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (2001) Economic choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(3):351–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (2005) Revealed stochastic preference: A synthesis. Econom. Theory 26(2):245–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden DL, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometrics 15(5):447–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKelvey R, Palfrey TR (1993) Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):6–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McMillen T, Holmes P (2006) The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives. J. Math. Psych. 50(1):30–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milosavljevic M, Malmaud J, Huth A, Koch C, Rangel A (2010) The drift diffusion model can account for value-based choice response times under high and low time pressure. Judgement Decision Making 5(6):437–449.Google Scholar
• Moreno-Bote R (2010) Decision confidence and uncertainty in diffusion models with partially correlated neuronal integrators. Neural Comput. 22(7):1786–1811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mullett TL, Stewart N (2016) Implications of visual attention phenomena for models of preferential choice. Decision 3(4):231–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Natenzon P (2018) Random choice and learning. J. Political Econom. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niwa M, Ditterich J (2008) Perceptual decisions between multiple directions of visual motion. J. Neuroscience 28(17):4435–4445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psych. Rev. 85(2):59–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Smith PL (2004) A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psych. Rev. 111(2):333–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2011) Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):900–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieke F, Warlan D, de Ruyter van Steveninck R, Bialek W (1997) Spikes—Exploring the Neural Code (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Roitman JD, Shadlen MN (2002) Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neuroscience 22(21):9475–9489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch R (2012) Bayesian Statistics and Marketing (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Roxin A, Ledberg A (2008) Neurobiological models of two-choice decision making can be reduced to a one-dimensional nonlinear diffusion equation. PLOS Comput. Biol. 4(3):e1000046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubinstein A (2013) Response time and decision making: An experimental study. Judgment Decision Making 8(5):540–551.Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Kiani R (2013) Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron 80(3):791–806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Newsome WT (1994) Noise, neural codes and cortical organization. Current Opinion Neurobiol. 4(4):569–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Newsome WT (1998) The variable discharge of cortical neurons: Implications for connectivity, computation, and information coding. J. Neuroscience 18(10):3870–3896.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Shohamy D (2016) Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron 90(5):927–939.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Hanks TD, Churchland AK, Kiani R (2006) The speed and accuracy of a simple perceptual decision: A mathematical primer. Doya K, Ishii S, Pouget A, Rao R, eds. Bayesian Brain Probabilistic Approaches to Neural Coding (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 207–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith A, Bernheim BD, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2014) Neural activity reveals preferences without choices. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 6(2):1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith PL (2000) Stochastic dynamic models of response time and accuracy: A foundational primer. J. Math. Psych. 44(3):408–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith PL, Ratcliff R (2004) Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends Neurosciences 27(3):161–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sobel J (2009) Neuroeconomics: A comment on Bernheim. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 1(2):60–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiegler R (2008) Comments on the potential significance of neuroeconomics for economic theory. Econom. Philos. 24(3):515–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivastava V, Feng SF, Cohen JD, Leonard NE, Shenhav A (2017) A martingale analysis of first passage times of time-dependent Wiener diffusion models. J. Math. Psych. 77:94–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Standage D, You H, Wang DH, Dorris MC (2013) Trading speed and accuracy by coding time: A coupled-circuit cortical model. PLOS Comput. Biol. 9(4):e1003021.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stevens CF (2003) Neurotransmitter release at central synapses. Neuron 40(2):381–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teodorescu AR, Usher M (2013) Disentangling decision models: From independence to competition. Psych. Rev. 120(1):1–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thevarajah D, Webb R, Ferrall C, Dorris MC (2010) Modeling the value of strategic actions in the superior colliculus. Frontiers Behavioral Neuroscience 3(57):1–14.Google Scholar
• Train KE (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsetsos K, Usher M, Chater N (2010) Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psych. Rev. 117(4):1275–1293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsetsos K, Gao J, McClelland JL, Usher M (2012) Using time-varying evidence to test models of decision dynamics: Bounded diffusion versus the leaky competing accumulator model. Frontiers Neuroscience 6(79):1–17.Google Scholar
• Tsetsos K, Moran R, Moreland J, Chater N, Usher M, Summerfield C (2016) Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(11):3102–3107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Usher M, McClelland JL (2001) On the time course of perceptual choice: A model based on principles of neural computation. Psych. Rev. 108(3):550–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wald A, Wolfowitz J (1948) Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test. Ann. Math. Statist. 19(3):326–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang XJ (2002) Probabilistic decision making by slow reverberation in cortical circuits. Neuron 36(5):955–968.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang XJ (2008) Decision making in recurrent neuronal circuits. Neuron 60(2):215–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webb R, Dorris MC (2013) A neural model of stochastic choice in a mixed strategy game. Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
• Webb R, Glimcher PW, Louie K (2016a) Rationalizing context-dependent preferences: Divisive normalization and neurobiological constraints on choice. Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
• Webb R, Glimcher PW, Levy I, Lazzaro S, Rutledge RB (2016b) Neural random utility: Relating cardinal neural observables to stochastic choice behaviour. Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
• Weber E (1834) On the Tactile Senses (with translation of De Tactu) (Experimental Psychology Society, New York).Google Scholar
• Wiecki TV, Sofer I, Frank MJ (2013) HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in Python. Frontiers Neuroinformatics 7:Article 14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (2008) Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. Harrison GW, Cox JC, eds. Risk Aversion in Experiments (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 197–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (2011) “Stochastically more risk averse:” A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. J. Econometrics 162(1):89–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong KF, Wang XJ (2006) A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions. J. Neuroscience 26(4):1314–1328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodford M (2014) Stochastic choice: An optimizing neuroeconomic model. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(5):495–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodford M (2016) Optimal evidence accumulation and stochastic choice. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Yellott JI Jr (1977) The relationship between Luce’s choice axiom, Thurstone’s theory of comparative judgment, and the double exponential distribution. J. Math. Psych. 15(2):109–144.Crossref, Google Scholar