Literature DB >> 22298845

Visual extrapolation under risk: human observers estimate and compensate for exogenous uncertainty.

Paul A Warren1, Erich W Graf, Rebecca A Champion, Laurence T Maloney.   

Abstract

Humans commonly face choices between multiple options with uncertain outcomes. Such situations occur in many contexts, from purely financial decisions (which shares should I buy?) to perceptuo-motor decisions between different actions (where should I aim my shot at goal?). Regardless of context, successful decision-making requires that the uncertainty at the heart of the decision-making problem is taken into account. Here, we ask whether humans can recover an estimate of exogenous uncertainty and then use it to make good decisions. Observers viewed a small dot that moved erratically until it disappeared behind an occluder. We varied the size of the occluder and the unpredictability of the dot's path. The observer attempted to capture the dot as it emerged from behind the occluded region by setting the location and extent of a 'catcher' along the edge of the occluder. The reward for successfully catching the dot was reduced as the size of the catcher increased. We compared human performance with that of an agent maximizing expected gain and found that observers consistently selected catcher size close to this theoretical solution. These results suggest that humans are finely tuned to exogenous uncertainty information and can exploit it to guide action.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22298845      PMCID: PMC3321716          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2527

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  21 in total

1.  Tracking multiple items through occlusion: clues to visual objecthood.

Authors:  B J Scholl; Z W Pylyshyn
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Statistical decision theory and the selection of rapid, goal-directed movements.

Authors:  Julia Trommershäuser; Laurence T Maloney; Michael S Landy
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.129

3.  Human ocular pursuit during the transient disappearance of a visual target.

Authors:  Simon J Bennett; Graham R Barnes
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Explicit estimation of visual uncertainty in human motion processing.

Authors:  Erich W Graf; Paul A Warren; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks.

Authors:  Rafal Bogacz; Eric Brown; Jeff Moehlis; Philip Holmes; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Trading off speed and accuracy in rapid, goal-directed movements.

Authors:  Mark Dean; Shih-Wei Wu; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-07-30       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Offset dynamics of human smooth pursuit eye movements: effects of target presence and subject attention.

Authors:  J Pola; H J Wyatt
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Prediction in the oculomotor system: smooth pursuit during transient disappearance of a visual target.

Authors:  W Becker; A F Fuchs
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Seeing motion behind occluders.

Authors:  S N Watamaniuk; S P McKee
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1995-10-26       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Humans trade off viewing time and movement duration to improve visuomotor accuracy in a fast reaching task.

Authors:  Peter W Battaglia; Paul R Schrater
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  8 in total

1.  Why do people appear not to extrapolate trajectories during multiple object tracking? A computational investigation.

Authors:  Sheng-Hua Zhong; Zheng Ma; Colin Wilson; Yan Liu; Jonathan I Flombaum
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Perceptuo-motor, cognitive, and description-based decision-making seem equally good.

Authors:  Andreas Jarvstad; Ulrike Hahn; Simon K Rushton; Paul A Warren
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  The role of uncertainty and reward on eye movements in a virtual driving task.

Authors:  Brian T Sullivan; Leif Johnson; Constantin A Rothkopf; Dana Ballard; Mary Hayhoe
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Active inference and oculomotor pursuit: the dynamic causal modelling of eye movements.

Authors:  Rick A Adams; Eduardo Aponte; Louise Marshall; Karl J Friston
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2015-01-10       Impact factor: 2.390

5.  Prospective decision making for randomly moving visual stimuli.

Authors:  Ryuto Yashiro; Hiromi Sato; Isamu Motoyoshi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value.

Authors:  Andrew Howes; Paul A Warren; George Farmer; Wael El-Deredy; Richard L Lewis
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  A re-examination of "bias" in human randomness perception.

Authors:  Paul A Warren; Umberto Gostoli; George D Farmer; Wael El-Deredy; Ulrike Hahn
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Peak-at-end rule: adaptive mechanism predicts time-dependent decision weighting.

Authors:  Ryuto Yashiro; Isamu Motoyoshi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.