Literature DB >> 30988476

Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour.

Armin W Thomas1,2,3, Felix Molter2,3,4,5, Ian Krajbich6, Hauke R Heekeren2,3, Peter N C Mohr7,8,9,10.   

Abstract

How do we make simple choices such as deciding between an apple and an orange? Recent empirical evidence suggests that choice behaviour and gaze allocation are closely linked at the group level, whereby items looked at longer during the decision-making process are more likely to be chosen. However, it is unclear how variable this gaze bias effect is between individuals. Here we investigate this question across four different simple choice experiments and using a computational model that can be easily applied to individuals. We show that an association between gaze and choice is present for most individuals, but differs considerably in strength. Generally, individuals with a strong association between gaze and choice behaviour are worse at choosing the best item from a choice set compared with individuals with a weak association. Accounting for individuals' variability in gaze bias in the model can explain and accurately predict individual differences in choice behaviour.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30988476     DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0584-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Hum Behav        ISSN: 2397-3374


  9 in total

Review 1.  Filling the gaps: Cognitive control as a critical lens for understanding mechanisms of value-based decision-making.

Authors:  R Frömer; A Shenhav
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 8.989

2.  Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour.

Authors:  Felix Molter; Armin W Thomas; Scott A Huettel; Hauke R Heekeren; Peter N C Mohr
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.779

3.  Humans actively sample evidence to support prior beliefs.

Authors:  Paula Kaanders; Pradyumna Sepulveda; Tomas Folke; Pietro Ortoleva; Benedetto De Martino
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 8.713

4.  Visual attention modulates the integration of goal-relevant evidence and not value.

Authors:  Pradyumna Sepulveda; Marius Usher; Ned Davies; Amy A Benson; Pietro Ortoleva; Benedetto De Martino
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  The formation of preference in risky choice.

Authors:  Moshe Glickman; Orian Sharoni; Dino J Levy; Ernst Niebur; Veit Stuphorn; Marius Usher
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 4.475

6.  GLAMbox: A Python toolbox for investigating the association between gaze allocation and decision behaviour.

Authors:  Felix Molter; Armin W Thomas; Hauke R Heekeren; Peter N C Mohr
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling.

Authors:  Frederick Callaway; Antonio Rangel; Thomas L Griffiths
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Humans represent the precision and utility of information acquired across fixations.

Authors:  Emma E M Stewart; Casimir J H Ludwig; Alexander C Schütz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Sources of confidence in value-based choice.

Authors:  Jeroen Brus; Helena Aebersold; Marcus Grueschow; Rafael Polania
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 14.919

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.