Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of receiving 0 pellets (P[0]) or 1 pellet (P[1]) following a high-uncertainty choice in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A.

Choice behavior from the probabilistic decision-making task and simulated Q-values for alcohol-exposed and control animals.

Jeremy J. Clark (164972)
Nicholas A. Nasrallah (164975)
Andrew S. Hart (164978)
Anne L. Collins (164980)
Ilene L. Bernstein (164982)
Paul E. M. Phillips (164984)

May 2012

(A) Average trial by trial choice of the uncertain option from each probabilistic conditio...

Measuring the Degree of Ambiguity about Probability: Experimental Evidence

Andrea Morone
Ozlem Ozdemir

Different from previous studies that use a best estimate, interval, or sets of probabilities, we rep...

1BJ Furman SJSU MAE ME 120 Experimental Methods Uncertainty Analysis

Bj Furman
Bj Furman
Sjsu Mae
Bj Furman Sjsu Mae
Bj Furman
Sjsu Mae

August 2015

Come up with a probable bound on a measured value xtrue = xmeas ± ux at C % confidence or n:1 odds ...

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high-uncertainty choice for each group in Experiment 1.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high...

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high-uncertainty choice for each group in Experiment 2.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A as a function of the probability of the 0-pellet outcome (P[0]) or the 1-pellet outcome (P[1]).

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

Note that high-uncertainty choices are plotted against the probability of the manipulated outcome...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices collapsed across groups in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A as a function of the outcome of the previous choice, collapsed across probability.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values was included to aid in...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices in the low-uncertainty magnitude training procedure of Experiment 3B as a function of the outcome magnitude of a low-uncertainty choice.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values is included to aid int...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 1 as a function of the outcome of the previous choice, collapsed across the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values was included to aid in...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 2 as a function of the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery (A) and the expected value of a high-uncertainty outcome (B).

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values is included to aid int...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 2 as a function of the outcome of the previous choice, collapsed across the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values was included to aid in...

Choice behavior on the probabilistic decision-making task predicted by the softmax function and simulated choice behavior with all parameters except positive learning rate held constant between groups.

Jeremy J. Clark (164972)
Nicholas A. Nasrallah (164975)
Andrew S. Hart (164978)
Anne L. Collins (164980)
Ilene L. Bernstein (164982)
Paul E. M. Phillips (164984)

May 2012

(A) Average trial by trial choice of the uncertain option from each probabilistic conditio...

Mean (±SEM) difference score between the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-large (H-L) outcomes and the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-small (H-S) outcomes for each group in Experiment 2 as a function of the difference between the magnitude of the H-S outcome and the expected value of the high-uncertainty choice.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A negative/positive difference on the abscissa indicates that the H-S outcome magnitude was great...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 1 as a function of the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery (A) and the expected value of the high-uncertainty outcome (B).

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

The horizontal line indicates neutral preference of the two outcomes. Values below this line refl...

Mean (±SEM) difference score between the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-large (H-L) outcomes and the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-small (H-S) outcomes for each group in Experiment 1 as a function of the difference between the magnitude of the H-S outcome and the expected value of the high-uncertainty choice.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A negative/positive difference on the abscissa indicates that the H-S outcome magnitude was great...

Choice behavior from the probabilistic decision-making task and simulated Q-values for alcohol-exposed and control animals.

Jeremy J. Clark (164972)
Nicholas A. Nasrallah (164975)
Andrew S. Hart (164978)
Anne L. Collins (164980)
Ilene L. Bernstein (164982)
Paul E. M. Phillips (164984)

May 2012

(A) Average trial by trial choice of the uncertain option from each probabilistic conditio...

Measuring the Degree of Ambiguity about Probability: Experimental Evidence

Andrea Morone
Ozlem Ozdemir

Different from previous studies that use a best estimate, interval, or sets of probabilities, we rep...

1BJ Furman SJSU MAE ME 120 Experimental Methods Uncertainty Analysis

Bj Furman
Bj Furman
Sjsu Mae
Bj Furman Sjsu Mae
Bj Furman
Sjsu Mae

August 2015

Come up with a probable bound on a measured value xtrue = xmeas ± ux at C % confidence or n:1 odds ...

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high-uncertainty choice for each group in Experiment 1.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high...

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high-uncertainty choice for each group in Experiment 2.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of food for a high...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A as a function of the probability of the 0-pellet outcome (P[0]) or the 1-pellet outcome (P[1]).

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

Note that high-uncertainty choices are plotted against the probability of the manipulated outcome...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices collapsed across groups in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A as a function of the outcome of the previous choice, collapsed across probability.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values was included to aid in...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices in the low-uncertainty magnitude training procedure of Experiment 3B as a function of the outcome magnitude of a low-uncertainty choice.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values is included to aid int...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 1 as a function of the outcome of the previous choice, collapsed across the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values was included to aid in...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 2 as a function of the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery (A) and the expected value of a high-uncertainty outcome (B).

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values is included to aid int...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 2 as a function of the outcome of the previous choice, collapsed across the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A second ordinate showing percentages corresponding to the log odds values was included to aid in...

Choice behavior on the probabilistic decision-making task predicted by the softmax function and simulated choice behavior with all parameters except positive learning rate held constant between groups.

Jeremy J. Clark (164972)
Nicholas A. Nasrallah (164975)
Andrew S. Hart (164978)
Anne L. Collins (164980)
Ilene L. Bernstein (164982)
Paul E. M. Phillips (164984)

May 2012

(A) Average trial by trial choice of the uncertain option from each probabilistic conditio...

Mean (±SEM) difference score between the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-large (H-L) outcomes and the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-small (H-S) outcomes for each group in Experiment 2 as a function of the difference between the magnitude of the H-S outcome and the expected value of the high-uncertainty choice.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A negative/positive difference on the abscissa indicates that the H-S outcome magnitude was great...

Mean (±SEM) log odds of high-uncertainty choices for each group in Experiment 1 as a function of the probability of high-uncertainty food delivery (A) and the expected value of the high-uncertainty outcome (B).

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

The horizontal line indicates neutral preference of the two outcomes. Values below this line refl...

Mean (±SEM) difference score between the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-large (H-L) outcomes and the log odds of high-uncertainty choices following high-uncertainty-small (H-S) outcomes for each group in Experiment 1 as a function of the difference between the magnitude of the H-S outcome and the expected value of the high-uncertainty choice.

Andrew T. Marshall (689600)
Kimberly Kirkpatrick (689601)

February 2015

A negative/positive difference on the abscissa indicates that the H-S outcome magnitude was great...

Choice behavior from the probabilistic decision-making task and simulated Q-values for alcohol-exposed and control animals.

Jeremy J. Clark (164972)
Nicholas A. Nasrallah (164975)
Andrew S. Hart (164978)
Anne L. Collins (164980)
Ilene L. Bernstein (164982)
Paul E. M. Phillips (164984)

May 2012

(A) Average trial by trial choice of the uncertain option from each probabilistic conditio...

Measuring the Degree of Ambiguity about Probability: Experimental Evidence

Andrea Morone
Ozlem Ozdemir

Different from previous studies that use a best estimate, interval, or sets of probabilities, we rep...

1BJ Furman SJSU MAE ME 120 Experimental Methods Uncertainty Analysis

Bj Furman
Bj Furman
Sjsu Mae
Bj Furman Sjsu Mae
Bj Furman
Sjsu Mae

August 2015

Come up with a probable bound on a measured value xtrue = xmeas ± ux at C % confidence or n:1 odds ...

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of receiving 0 pellets (P[0]) or 1 pellet (P[1]) following a high-uncertainty choice in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A.

Abstract

Extracted data

Expected value of the high-uncertainty choice as a function of the probability of receiving 0 pellets (P[0]) or 1 pellet (P[1]) following a high-uncertainty choice in the high-uncertainty probability training procedure of Experiment 3A.

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items