Search for: All records

Perceptual decision-making has been shown to be influenced by reward expected from alternative options or actions, but the underlying neural mechanisms are currently unknown. More specifically, it is debated whether reward effects are mediated through changes in sensory processing, later stages of decision-making, or both. To address this question, we conducted two experiments in which human participants made saccades to what they perceived to be either the first or second of two visually identical but asynchronously presented targets while we manipulated expected reward from correct and incorrect responses on each trial. By comparing reward-induced bias in target selection (i.e., reward bias) during the two experiments, we determined whether reward caused changes in sensory or decision-making processes. We found similar reward biases in the two experiments indicating that reward information mainly influenced later stages of decision-making. Moreover, the observed reward biases were independent of the individual's sensitivity to sensory signals. This suggests that reward effects were determined heuristically via modulation of decision-making processes instead of sensory processing. To further explain our findings and uncover plausible neural mechanisms, we simulated our experiments with a cortical network model and tested alternative mechanisms for how reward could exert its influence. We found that our experimental observations are more compatible with reward-dependent input to the output layer of the decision circuit. Together, our results suggest that, during a temporal judgment task, reward exerts its influence via changing later stages of decision-making (i.e., response bias) rather than early sensory processing (i.e., perceptual bias). 

Abstract ObjectiveThis article discusses how kinship is construed and enacted in diverse forms of the family that are now part of the culturally pluralistic family system of Western societies. BackgroundThis study is the second in a pair documenting changes over the past century in the meaning and practice of kinship in the family system of Western societies with industrialized economies. While the first paper reviewed the history of kinship studies, this companion piece shifts the focus to research explorations of kinship in alternative family forms, those that depart from the standard nuclear family structure. MethodThe review was conducted running multiple searches on Google Scholar and Web of Science directly targeting nonstandard family forms, using search terms such as “cohabitation and kinship,” “same‐sex family and kinship,” and “Artificial Reproductive Technology and kinship,” among others. About 70% of studies focused on the United States, while the remaining 30% focused on other industrialized Western societies. ResultsWe identified three general processes by which alternative family forms are created and discussed how kinship practices work in each of them. Thefirstcluster of alternative family forms comes about throughvariations of formal marriage or its absence, including sequential marriages, plural marriages, consensual unions, single parenthood, and same‐sex marriages and partnerships. Thesecondcluster is formed as a result ofalterations in the reproduction process, when a child is not the product of sexual intercourse between two people. Thethirdcluster results from theformation of voluntary bondsthat are deemed to be kinship‐like, in which affiliation rests on neither biological nor legal bases. ConclusionFindings from this study point to a broad cultural acceptance of an inclusive approach to incorporating potential kin in “family relationships.” It is largely left to individuals to decide whether they recognize or experience the diffuse sense of emotional connectedness and perceived obligation that characterize the bond of kinship. Also, family scripts and kinship terms often borrow from the vocabulary and parenting practices observed in the standard family form in the West. Concurrently, the cultural importance of biology remains strong. ImplicationsThis study concludes by identifying important gaps in the kinship literature and laying out a research agenda for the future, including building ademography of kinship.