Literature DB >> 17229111

Evidence for time-variant decision making.

Jochen Ditterich1.   

Abstract

Computational models based on diffusion processes have been proposed to account for human decision-making behaviour in a variety of tasks. The basic idea is that the brain keeps accumulating noisy sensory evidence until a critical level is reached. This study explores whether such models account for the speed and accuracy of perceptual decisions in a reaction-time random dot motion direction discrimination task, and whether they explain the decision-related activity of neurons recorded from the parietal cortex (area LIP) of monkeys performing the task. While a simple diffusion model can explain the psychometric function and the mean response times of correct responses, it fails to account for the longer response times observed for errors and for the response time distributions. Here I demonstrate that a time-variant version of the diffusion model can explain the psychometric function, the mean response times and the shape of the response time distributions. Such a time-variant mechanism could be implemented in different ways, but the best match between the physiological data and model predictions is provided by a diffusion process with a gain of the sensory signals, which increases over time. It can be shown that such a time-variant decision process allows the monkey to perform optimally (in the sense of maximizing reward rate) given the risk of aborting a trial by breaking fixation before a choice can be reported. The results suggest that the brain trades off speed and accuracy not only by adjusting parameters between trials but also by dynamic adjustments during an ongoing decision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17229111     DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05221.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Neurosci        ISSN: 0953-816X            Impact factor:   3.386


  90 in total

Review 1.  Accounting for speed-accuracy tradeoff in perceptual learning.

Authors:  Charles C Liu; Takeo Watanabe
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  On the difference between evidence accumulator models and the urgency gating model.

Authors:  David Thura; Paul Cisek
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-01-01       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  How to discriminate conclusively among different models of decision making?

Authors:  David Thura
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  The urgency-gating model can explain the effects of early evidence.

Authors:  Matthew A Carland; David Thura; Paul Cisek
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-12

5.  The spatial scale of attention strongly modulates saccade latencies.

Authors:  Mark R Harwood; Laurent Madelain; Richard J Krauzlis; Josh Wallman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  On diffusion processes with variable drift rates as models for decision making during learning.

Authors:  P Eckhoff; P Holmes; C Law; P M Connolly; J I Gold
Journal:  New J Phys       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 3.729

Review 7.  Decision making in recurrent neuronal circuits.

Authors:  Xiao-Jing Wang
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 17.173

8.  Saccade target selection relies on feedback competitive signal integration.

Authors:  Joke P Kalisvaart; André J Noest; Albert V van den Berg; Jeroen Goossens
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Interpreting temporal dynamics during sensory decision-making.

Authors:  Aaron J Levi; Alexander C Huk
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-05-15

10.  People adopt optimal policies in simple decision-making, after practice and guidance.

Authors:  Nathan J Evans; Scott D Brown
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.