Literature DB >> 30143576

Having More Choices Changes How Human Observers Weight Stable Sensory Evidence.

Sirawaj Itthipuripat1,2,3, Kexin Cha4, Sean Deering4,5, Annalisa M Salazar4, John T Serences6,4,7.   

Abstract

Decision-making becomes slower when more choices are available. Existing models attribute this slowing to poor sensory processing, to attenuated rates of sensory evidence accumulation, or to increases in the amount of evidence required before committing to a decision (a higher decision threshold). However, studies have not isolated the effects of having more choices on sensory and decision-related processes from changes in task difficulty and divided attention. Here, we controlled task difficulty while independently manipulating the distribution of attention and the number of choices available to male and female human observers. We used EEG to measure steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) and a frontal late positive deflection (LPD), EEG markers of sensory and postsensory decision-related processes, respectively. We found that dividing attention decreased SSVEP and LPD amplitudes, consistent with dampened sensory responses and slower rates of evidence accumulation, respectively. In contrast, having more choices did not alter SSVEP amplitude and led to a larger LPD. These results suggest that having more options largely spares early sensory processing and slows down decision-making via a selective increase in decision thresholds.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT When more choices are available, decision-making becomes slower. We tested whether this phenomenon is due to poor sensory processing, to reduced rates of evidence accumulation, or to increases in the amount of evidence required before committing to a decision (a higher decision threshold). We measured choice modulations of sensory and decision-related neural responses using EEG. We also minimized potential confounds from changes in the distribution of attention and task difficulty, which often covary with having more choices. Dividing attention reduced the activity levels of both sensory and decision-related responses. However, having more choices did not change sensory processing and led to larger decision-related responses. These results suggest that having more choices spares sensory processing and selectively increases decision thresholds.
Copyright © 2018 the authors 0270-6474/18/388635-15$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision threshold; divided attention; event-related potential; evidence accumulation; multiple-choice decision-making; steady-state visually evoked potential

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30143576      PMCID: PMC6170981          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0440-18.2018

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


  119 in total

1.  Cortico-basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks.

Authors:  Chung-Chuan Lo; Xiao-Jing Wang
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-06-11       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 2.  The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.026

3.  The encoding of alternatives in multiple-choice decision making.

Authors:  Larissa Albantakis; Gustavo Deco
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Perceptual decisions between multiple directions of visual motion.

Authors:  Mamiko Niwa; Jochen Ditterich
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Feature-based attention elicits surround suppression in feature space.

Authors:  Viola S Störmer; George A Alvarez
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  The spatial allocation of visual attention as indexed by event-related brain potentials.

Authors:  G R Mangun; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.888

7.  Set-size effects in visual search: the effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks.

Authors:  J Palmer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Graded Neuronal Modulations Related to Visual Spatial Attention.

Authors:  J Patrick Mayo; John H R Maunsell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 9.  New advances in understanding decisions among multiple alternatives.

Authors:  Anne K Churchland; Jochen Ditterich
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 6.627

10.  Neural mechanisms of human perceptual choice under focused and divided attention.

Authors:  Valentin Wyart; Nicholas E Myers; Christopher Summerfield
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  4 in total

1.  When Conflict Cannot be Avoided: Relative Contributions of Early Selection and Frontal Executive Control in Mitigating Stroop Conflict.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Sean Deering; John T Serences
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.357

2.  Functional MRI and EEG Index Complementary Attentional Modulations.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Thomas C Sprague; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Stimulus visibility and uncertainty mediate the influence of attention on response bias and visual contrast appearance.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Kai-Yu Chang; Ashley Bong; John T Serences
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Differential Involvement of EEG Oscillatory Components in Sameness versus Spatial-Relation Visual Reasoning Tasks.

Authors:  Andrea Alamia; Canhuang Luo; Matthew Ricci; Junkyung Kim; Thomas Serre; Rufin VanRullen
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-01-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.