Value construction through sequential sampling explains serial dependencies in decision making.

Deciding between a pair of familiar items is thought to rely on a comparison of their subjective values. When the values are similar, decisions take longer, and the choice may be inconsistent with stated value. These regularities are thought to be explained by the same mechanism of noisy evidence accumulation that leads to perceptual errors under conditions of low signal to noise.

Direct observation of the neural computations underlying a single decision.

Neurobiological investigations of perceptual decision-making have furnished the first glimpse of a flexible cognitive process at the level of single neurons. Neurons in the parietal and prefrontal cortex are thought to represent the accumulation of noisy evidence, acquired over time, leading to a decision. Neural recordings averaged over many decisions have provided support for the deterministic rise in activity to a termination bound.

Value construction through sequential sampling explains serial dependencies in decision making.

Many decisions are expressed as a preference for one item over another. When these items are familiar, it is often assumed that the decision maker assigns a value to each of the items and chooses the item with the highest value. These values may be imperfectly recalled, but are assumed to be stable over the course of an interview or psychological experiment.

Population Representation of the Confidence in a Decision in the Lateral Intraparietal Area of the Macaque.

Confidence in a decision is the belief, prior to feedback, that one's choice is correct. In the brain, many decisions are implemented as a race between competing evidence-accumulation processes. We ask whether the neurons that represent evidence accumulation also carry information about whether the choice is correct (i.

Incorporation of a cost of deliberation time in perceptual decision making.

Many decisions benefit from the accumulation of evidence obtained sequentially over time. In such circumstances, the decision maker must balance speed against accuracy, and the nature of this tradeoff mediates competing desiderata and costs, especially those associated with the passage of time. A neural mechanism to achieve this balance is to accumulate evidence in suitable units and to terminate the deliberation when enough evidence has accrued.