Literature DB >> 33769284

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

Anthony I Jang1, Ravi Sharma2, Jan Drugowitsch1.   

Abstract

Traditional accumulation-to-bound decision-making models assume that all choice options are processed with equal attention. In real life decisions, however, humans alternate their visual fixation between individual items to efficiently gather relevant information (Yang et al., 2016). These fixations also causally affect one's choices, biasing them toward the longer-fixated item (Krajbich et al., 2010). We derive a normative decision-making model in which attention enhances the reliability of information, consistent with neurophysiological findings (Cohen and Maunsell, 2009). Furthermore, our model actively controls fixation changes to optimize information gathering. We show that the optimal model reproduces fixation-related choice biases seen in humans and provides a Bayesian computational rationale for this phenomenon. This insight led to additional predictions that we could confirm in human data. Finally, by varying the relative cognitive advantage conferred by attention, we show that decision performance is benefited by a balanced spread of resources between the attended and unattended items.
© 2021, Jang et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision-making; diffusion models; human; neuroscience; optimality; visual attention

Year:  2021        PMID: 33769284      PMCID: PMC8064754          DOI: 10.7554/eLife.63436

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


  46 in total

Review 1.  Attentional modulation of visual processing.

Authors:  John H Reynolds; Leonardo Chelazzi
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 12.449

2.  Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice.

Authors:  Ian Krajbich; Carrie Armel; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2010-09-12       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Gaze Amplifies Value in Decision Making.

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

4.  Attention and choice across domains.

Authors:  Stephanie M Smith; Ian Krajbich
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2018-09-24

5.  Orienting of attention.

Authors:  M I Posner
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  The evil of banality: When choosing between the mundane feels like choosing between the worst.

Authors:  Amitai Shenhav; Carolyn K Dean Wolf; Uma R Karmarkar
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2018-05-17

7.  Learning where to look for a hidden target.

Authors:  Leanne Chukoskie; Joseph Snider; Michael C Mozer; Richard J Krauzlis; Terrence J Sejnowski
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Learning rational temporal eye movement strategies.

Authors:  David Hoppe; Constantin A Rothkopf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  A neuronal population measure of attention predicts behavioral performance on individual trials.

Authors:  Marlene R Cohen; John H R Maunsell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Attention improves memory by suppressing spiking-neuron activity in the human anterior temporal lobe.

Authors:  John H Wittig; Anthony I Jang; John B Cocjin; Sara K Inati; Kareem A Zaghloul
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  10 in total

1.  Trading mental effort for confidence in the metacognitive control of value-based decision-making.

Authors:  Douglas G Lee; Jean Daunizeau
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-04-26       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

Review 3.  Advances in modeling learning and decision-making in neuroscience.

Authors:  Anne G E Collins; Amitai Shenhav
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 7.853

4.  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

5.  Balance between breadth and depth in human many-alternative decisions.

Authors:  Alice Vidal; Salvador Soto-Faraco; Rubén Moreno-Bote
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 8.713

6.  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

7.  Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning.

Authors:  Frederick Callaway; Bas van Opheusden; Sayan Gul; Priyam Das; Paul M Krueger; Thomas L Griffiths; Falk Lieder
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2022-04-28

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Toward an attentional turn in research on risky choice.

Authors:  Veronika Zilker; Thorsten Pachur
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-06
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.