Skip to main content
Vai all'homepage della Commissione europea (si apre in una nuova finestra)
italiano italiano
CORDIS - Risultati della ricerca dell’UE
CORDIS
Contenuto archiviato il 2024-06-18

Sequential encounters as the evolutionary drivers of choice mechanisms

Obiettivo

Introspection often creates the perception that our decisions are driven by the evaluation of each alternative, and as a consequence we assume that animals also choose by evaluating alternatives. If this were true, choosing would take information-processing effort and time: more options, more time. However, in starlings, this pattern does not hold. The Sequential Choice Model (SCM) was proposed to deal with this curious finding. Its main feature is that it predicts behaviour in choice situations using data from no-choice encounters with each alternative. Its premises are: (1) When an animal faces a single option, it doesn’t take it immediately (the “latency”). Each alternative faced on its own elicits a specific probability density function of latencies. Latencies are not reaction times: they exceed RTs duration by an order of magnitude and have different properties; (2) Latencies to take single options are decreasing functions of the improvement in state-dependent fitness that the decision maker expects from that option relative to the context; (3) Expectations about each option depend on both the subject’s state and the average properties of the environment during learning; (4) When more than one option is met simultaneously, each elicits a sample from its original distribution of latencies. The shortest sample is expressed as a choice. There is no comparative evaluation at choice time: each option elicits a candidate latency just as in sequential encounters. This cross-censorship between latency distributions means that latencies for each option are shorter when picked out of a choice than when picked in the absence of alternatives. The SCM was proposed for a system with pairs of options, where its predictive performance was very successful. To investigate its generality, I will now test it in a wide variety of choice paradigms, including multi-alternative choice, the time-left procedure, risky choice and comparative valuation scenarios.

Parole chiave

Parole chiave del progetto, indicate dal coordinatore del progetto. Da non confondere con la tassonomia EuroSciVoc (campo scientifico).

Argomento(i)

Gli inviti a presentare proposte sono suddivisi per argomenti. Un argomento definisce un’area o un tema specifico per il quale i candidati possono presentare proposte. La descrizione di un argomento comprende il suo ambito specifico e l’impatto previsto del progetto finanziato.

Invito a presentare proposte

Procedura per invitare i candidati a presentare proposte di progetti, con l’obiettivo di ricevere finanziamenti dall’UE.

FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008
Vedi altri progetti per questo bando

Meccanismo di finanziamento

Meccanismo di finanziamento (o «Tipo di azione») all’interno di un programma con caratteristiche comuni. Specifica: l’ambito di ciò che viene finanziato; il tasso di rimborso; i criteri di valutazione specifici per qualificarsi per il finanziamento; l’uso di forme semplificate di costi come gli importi forfettari.

MC-IEF - Intra-European Fellowships (IEF)

Coordinatore

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
Contributo UE
€ 174 702,68
Indirizzo
WELLINGTON SQUARE UNIVERSITY OFFICES
OX1 2JD Oxford
Regno Unito

Mostra sulla mappa

Regione
South East (England) Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Oxfordshire
Tipo di attività
Higher or Secondary Education Establishments
Collegamenti
Costo totale

I costi totali sostenuti dall’organizzazione per partecipare al progetto, compresi i costi diretti e indiretti. Questo importo è un sottoinsieme del bilancio complessivo del progetto.

Nessun dato
Il mio fascicolo 0 0