Sebastian Gluth

@SebastianGluth

psychologist, neuroscientist, interested in economic decision making and reinforcement learning

Vrijeme pridruživanja: veljača 2017.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @SebastianGluth

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @SebastianGluth

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    3. velj

    Decisions between >2 options are tricky. In our newest work, we could not replicate a previous “divisive normalization” or “distractor effect” in decisions btw 3 food snacks. But we found remarkable dynamic interactions between valuation & attention: (1/6)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    When deciding between high/low value options, we can be influenced by irrelevant choices. Contrary to prior results, et al find value-based attention plays a role in "irrational" choices, but no evidence for a role of divisive normalisation

    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Nice paper! We find either no or *opposite* effect of best-worst option predicted by DN in a social choice set when you model random effect of participant. If you leave that out, we get same results as Louie et al. Thought you might find it interesting:

    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    The Confidence Database is now out in ! It has 145 datasets with data from over 8,700 participants and almost 4 million trials. THREAD

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 3. velj

    You should also check out the News & Views by on our work () and a blog post on the Behavioral & Social Sciences blog of () that I wrote (which explains our study and reasons to run it in simple words). (6/6).

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 3. velj

    I want to add that we asked the first author of the original study, , for quite some information, and he was always cooperative and helpful (sending us original materials etc.). Kenway might have a different view on our work, but his cooperation was exemplary. (5/6)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 3. velj

    The eye-tracking results support our idea that better worst options receive more attention. But this does not make decisions less accurate, just slower. We explain these results by extending the aDDM (), such that attention and valuation kind of "escalate". (4/6)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 3. velj

    This was surprising to us, given that our goal was to replicate the effect, and then to offer an alternative explanation: Better worst option make decisions harder, because they capture attention and can't be ignored. This is why we used eye tracking in 1 of our experiments (3/6)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 3. velj

    The original study reported that better worst options make it harder to choose among the 2 good ones, as predicted by divisive normalization of neural value coding. But we don't find this effect in our 2 experiments, both preregistered : (2/6)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    great new paper out by suggests biases in multi-alternative decisions may be due to attention, not normalisation: . See also our comment with

    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    Thrilled to be speaking at the Symposium on the Cognitive Underpinnings of Economic Behavior in Amsterdam on June 10, with a number of other wonderful speakers, including .

    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    29. sij

    Happy to see our paper being published in CBB. We show that different speed-accuracy trade-off operationalizations map onto different components of the . Thank you Leendert and Guy for your support and guidance throughout this process

    Poništi
  13. 16. sij

    We link memory-based decisions to decisions under uncertainty by showing that people prefer better remembered options in gains (a phenomenon we call the "memory bias") but exhibit the opposite pattern in losses - just as people avoid uncertainty in gains but seek them in losses.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 16. sij

    New preprint out from our group (with Regina Weilbaecher and ) showing that one reason why memories bias value-based decisions is the uncertainty that (poor) memory entails. . Predictions preregistered (). One more sentence...

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij

    PhD and PostDoc position at the BuechelLab in Hamburg () on neurobiological mechanisms underlying cognitive modulation of pain. See for details.

    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    19. pro 2019.

    I‘m currently experiencing my first Christmas time as an editor and will never again submit anything before the holidays. That‘s crazy!

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    18. pro 2019.

    This is an incredibly disingenuous, morally bankrupt letter, and as a psychologist, I'm deeply disappointing that and have both endorsed it (the latter doesn't surprise me much; the former does, and makes me very sad).

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    13. pro 2019.

    Big thank you to guest editor , who despite being tired of hearing about ego depletion (like many of you!), was helpful, funny, and constructive. Thank you! /end

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 29. stu 2019.

    Today, Jerome Busemeyer received the honorary doctorate from the Faculty of Psychology of , and the award for the best publication in 2019 (for our Psych Rev paper: ). I'm just proud to collaborate with these excellent scientists!

    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    26. stu 2019.

    Susan Fiske continues to abuse her power to publish fake science in PNAS. Who wants to collaborate on a response (looking for 100+ authors).

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·