Literature DB >> 33200982

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

Pradyumna Sepulveda1, Marius Usher2, Ned Davies1, Amy A Benson1, Pietro Ortoleva3, Benedetto De Martino1,4.   

Abstract

When choosing between options, such as food items presented in plain view, people tend to choose the option they spend longer looking at. The prevailing interpretation is that visual attention increases value. However, in previous studies, 'value' was coupled to a behavioural goal, since subjects had to choose the item they preferred. This makes it impossible to discern if visual attention has an effect on value, or, instead, if attention modulates the information most relevant for the goal of the decision-maker. Here, we present the results of two independent studies-a perceptual and a value-based task-that allow us to decouple value from goal-relevant information using specific task-framing. Combining psychophysics with computational modelling, we show that, contrary to the current interpretation, attention does not boost value, but instead it modulates goal-relevant information. This work provides a novel and more general mechanism by which attention interacts with choice.
© 2020, Sepulveda et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  computational modelling; decision-making; eye movements; goal-directed choice; human; metacognition; neuroscience; visual attention

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33200982      PMCID: PMC7723413          DOI: 10.7554/eLife.60705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Elife        ISSN: 2050-084X            Impact factor:   8.140


  33 in total

1.  Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making.

Authors:  Sebastian Gluth; Mikhail S Spektor; Jörg Rieskamp
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Attentional Selection Mediates Framing and Risk-Bias Effects.

Authors:  Moshe Glickman; Konstantinos Tsetsos; Marius Usher
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2018-11-07

3.  Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour.

Authors:  Armin W Thomas; Felix Molter; Ian Krajbich; Hauke R Heekeren; Peter N C Mohr
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-04-15

4.  Gaze Amplifies Value in Decision Making.

Authors:  Stephanie M Smith; Ian Krajbich
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2018-12-07

Review 5.  The Importance of Falsification in Computational Cognitive Modeling.

Authors:  Stefano Palminteri; Valentin Wyart; Etienne Koechlin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 20.229

6.  Value-based decision making: An interactive activation perspective.

Authors:  Gaurav Suri; James J Gross; James L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions.

Authors:  Ian Krajbich; Dingchao Lu; Colin Camerer; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-06-13

8.  Contextual influence on confidence judgments in human reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Maël Lebreton; Karin Bacily; Stefano Palminteri; Jan B Engelmann
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 4.475

9.  Two systems drive attention to rewards.

Authors:  Christopher K Kovach; Matthew J Sutterer; Sara N Rushia; Adrianna Teriakidis; Rick L Jenison
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-02-05

10.  Mesolimbic confidence signals guide perceptual learning in the absence of external feedback.

Authors:  Matthias Guggenmos; Gregor Wilbertz; Martin N Hebart; Philipp Sterzer
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 8.140

View more
  9 in total

1.  Optimal policy for attention-modulated decisions explains human fixation behavior.

Authors:  Anthony I Jang; Ravi Sharma; Jan Drugowitsch
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 2.  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

3.  Medial Frontal Cortex Activity Predicts Information Sampling in Economic Choice.

Authors:  Paula Kaanders; Hamed Nili; Jill X O'Reilly; Laurence Hunt
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  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

5.  Optimal Allocation of Finite Sampling Capacity in Accumulator Models of Multialternative Decision Making.

Authors:  Jorge Ramírez-Ruiz; Rubén Moreno-Bote
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-05

6.  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

7.  A causal role for the right frontal eye fields in value comparison.

Authors:  Ian Krajbich; Andres Mitsumasu; Christian C Ruff; Ernst Fehr; Rafael Polania
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 8.140

8.  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.  Salience effects in information acquisition: No evidence for a top-down coherence influence.

Authors:  Arndt Bröder; Sophie Scharf; Marc Jekel; Andreas Glöckner; Nicole Franke
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-06-16
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.