↓ Skip to main content

PNAS

Computational modeling of epiphany learning

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
29 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
64 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Computational modeling of epiphany learning
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2017
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1618161114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei James Chen, Ian Krajbich

Abstract

Models of reinforcement learning (RL) are prevalent in the decision-making literature, but not all behavior seems to conform to the gradual convergence that is a central feature of RL. In some cases learning seems to happen all at once. Limited prior research on these "epiphanies" has shown evidence of sudden changes in behavior, but it remains unclear how such epiphanies occur. We propose a sequential-sampling model of epiphany learning (EL) and test it using an eye-tracking experiment. In the experiment, subjects repeatedly play a strategic game that has an optimal strategy. Subjects can learn over time from feedback but are also allowed to commit to a strategy at any time, eliminating all other options and opportunities to learn. We find that the EL model is consistent with the choices, eye movements, and pupillary responses of subjects who commit to the optimal strategy (correct epiphany) but not always of those who commit to a suboptimal strategy or who do not commit at all. Our findings suggest that EL is driven by a latent evidence accumulation process that can be revealed with eye-tracking data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 28%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 42%
Neuroscience 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Computer Science 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 20 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 285. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2023.
All research outputs
#125,595
of 25,769,258 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2,632
of 103,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,779
of 325,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#52
of 908 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,769,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 908 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.