Literature DB >> 26245962

Payoff Information Biases a Fast Guess Process in Perceptual Decision Making under Deadline Pressure: Evidence from Behavior, Evoked Potentials, and Quantitative Model Comparison.

Sharareh Noorbaloochi1, Dahlia Sharon1, James L McClelland2.   

Abstract

We used electroencephalography (EEG) and behavior to examine the role of payoff bias in a difficult two-alternative perceptual decision under deadline pressure in humans. The findings suggest that a fast guess process, biased by payoff and triggered by stimulus onset, occurred on a subset of trials and raced with an evidence accumulation process informed by stimulus information. On each trial, the participant judged whether a rectangle was shifted to the right or left and responded by squeezing a right- or left-hand dynamometer. The payoff for each alternative (which could be biased or unbiased) was signaled 1.5 s before stimulus onset. The choice response was assigned to the first hand reaching a squeeze force criterion and reaction time was defined as time to criterion. Consistent with a fast guess account, fast responses were strongly biased toward the higher-paying alternative and the EEG exhibited an abrupt rise in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) on a subset of biased payoff trials contralateral to the higher-paying alternative ∼ 150 ms after stimulus onset and 50 ms before stimulus information influenced the LRP. This rise was associated with poststimulus dynamometer activity favoring the higher-paying alternative and predicted choice and response time. Quantitative modeling supported the fast guess account over accounts of payoff effects supported in other studies. Our findings, taken with previous studies, support the idea that payoff and prior probability manipulations produce flexible adaptations to task structure and do not reflect a fixed policy for the integration of payoff and stimulus information. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Humans and other animals often face situations in which they must make choices based on uncertain sensory information together with information about expected outcomes (gains or losses) about each choice. We investigated how differences in payoffs between available alternatives affect neural activity, overt choice, and the timing of choice responses. In our experiment, in which participants were under strong time pressure, neural and behavioral findings together with model fitting suggested that our human participants often made a fast guess toward the higher reward rather than integrating stimulus and payoff information. Our findings, taken with findings from other studies, support the idea that payoff and prior probability manipulations produce flexible adaptations to task structure and do not reflect a fixed policy.
Copyright © 2015 the authors 0270-6474/15/3510989-23$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; decision making; fast guess; lateralization of readiness potential (LRP); payoff; reward

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26245962      PMCID: PMC6605280          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0017-15.2015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  40 in total

1.  Effect of expected reward magnitude on the response of neurons in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the macaque.

Authors:  M I Leon; M N Shadlen
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 2.  Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting.

Authors:  J D Schall
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex.

Authors:  M L Platt; P W Glimcher
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-07-15       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  The influence of urgency on decision time.

Authors:  B A Reddi; R H Carpenter
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 24.884

5.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model.

Authors:  M Usher; J L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making.

Authors:  R M Roe; J R Busemeyer; J T Townsend
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Francis Tuerlinckx
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-09

8.  A role for neural integrators in perceptual decision making.

Authors:  Mark E Mazurek; Jamie D Roitman; Jochen Ditterich; Michael N Shadlen
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.357

9.  [CHANGES IN THE BRAIN POTENTIAL IN VOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS AND PASSIVE MOVEMENTS IN MAN: READINESS POTENTIAL AND REAFFERENT POTENTIALS].

Authors:  H H KORNHUBER; L DEECKE
Journal:  Pflugers Arch Gesamte Physiol Menschen Tiere       Date:  1965-05-10

10.  Saccadic choice with asynchronous targets: evidence for independent randomisation.

Authors:  J C Leach; R H Carpenter
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  9 in total

1.  The dynamics of multimodal integration: The averaging diffusion model.

Authors:  Brandon M Turner; Juan Gao; Scott Koenig; Dylan Palfy; James L McClelland
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-12

2.  Visuomotor Correlates of Conflict Expectation in the Context of Motor Decisions.

Authors:  Gerard Derosiere; Pierre-Alexandre Klein; Sylvie Nozaradan; Alexandre Zénon; André Mouraux; Julie Duque
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Confluence of Timing and Reward Biases in Perceptual Decision-Making Dynamics.

Authors:  Maxwell Shinn; Daniel B Ehrlich; Daeyeol Lee; John D Murray; Hyojung Seo
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Choice history biases subsequent evidence accumulation.

Authors:  Konstantinos Tsetsos; Tobias H Donner; Anne E Urai; Jan Willem de Gee
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Dynamic Interplay of Value and Sensory Information in High-Speed Decision Making.

Authors:  Kivilcim Afacan-Seref; Natalie A Steinemann; Annabelle Blangero; Simon P Kelly
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  Neural Mechanisms of Post-error Adjustments of Decision Policy in Parietal Cortex.

Authors:  Braden A Purcell; Roozbeh Kiani
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 17.173

7.  Neural Signature of Value-Based Sensorimotor Prioritization in Humans.

Authors:  Annabelle Blangero; Simon P Kelly
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Response repetition biases in human perceptual decisions are explained by activity decay in competitive attractor models.

Authors:  James J Bonaiuto; Archy de Berker; Sven Bestmann
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 8.140

9.  Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber's law? A reexamination of two case studies.

Authors:  Alberto Testolin; James L McClelland
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.