IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1001203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Awareness Changes the Relative Weights of Evidence During Human Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Floris P de Lange
  • Simon van Gaal
  • Victor A F Lamme
  • Stanislas Dehaene

Abstract

A combined behavioral and brain imaging study shows how sensory awareness and stimulus visibility can influence the dynamics of decision-making in humans. Human decisions are based on accumulating evidence over time for different options. Here we ask a simple question: How is the accumulation of evidence affected by the level of awareness of the information? We examined the influence of awareness on decision-making using combined behavioral methods and magneto-encephalography (MEG). Participants were required to make decisions by accumulating evidence over a series of visually presented arrow stimuli whose visibility was modulated by masking. Behavioral results showed that participants could accumulate evidence under both high and low visibility. However, a top-down strategic modulation of the flow of incoming evidence was only present for stimuli with high visibility: once enough evidence had been accrued, participants strategically reduced the impact of new incoming stimuli. Also, decision-making speed and confidence were strongly modulated by the strength of the evidence for high-visible but not low-visible evidence, even though direct priming effects were identical for both types of stimuli. Neural recordings revealed that, while initial perceptual processing was independent of visibility, there was stronger top-down amplification for stimuli with high visibility than low visibility. Furthermore, neural markers of evidence accumulation over occipito-parietal cortex showed a strategic bias only for highly visible sensory information, speeding up processing and reducing neural computations related to the decision process. Our results indicate that the level of awareness of information changes decision-making: while accumulation of evidence already exists under low visibility conditions, high visibility allows evidence to be accumulated up to a higher level, leading to important strategical top-down changes in decision-making. Our results therefore suggest a potential role of awareness in deploying flexible strategies for biasing information acquisition in line with one's expectations and goals. Author Summary: When making a decision, we gather evidence for the different options and ultimately choose on the basis of the accumulated evidence. A fundamental question is whether and how conscious awareness of the evidence changes this decision-making process. Here, we examined the influence of sensory awareness on decision-making using behavioral studies and magneto-encephalographic recordings in human participants. In our task, participants had to indicate the prevailing direction of five arrows presented on a screen that each pointed either left or right, and in different trials these arrows were either easy to see (high visibility) or difficult to see (low visibility). Behavioral and neural recordings show that evidence accumulation changed from a linear to a non-linear integration strategy with increasing stimulus visibility. In particular, the impact of later evidence was reduced when more evidence had been accrued, but only for highly visible information. By contrast, barely perceptible arrows contributed equally to a decision because participants needed to continue to accumulate evidence in order to make an accurate decision. These results suggest that consciousness may play a role in decision-making by biasing the accumulation of new evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Floris P de Lange & Simon van Gaal & Victor A F Lamme & Stanislas Dehaene, 2011. "How Awareness Changes the Relative Weights of Evidence During Human Decision-Making," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-10, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001203
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001203
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001203&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tianming Yang & Michael N. Shadlen, 2007. "Probabilistic reasoning by neurons," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7148), pages 1075-1080, June.
    2. Stanislas Dehaene & Lionel Naccache & Gurvan Le Clec'H & Etienne Koechlin & Michael Mueller & Ghislaine Dehaene-Lambertz & Pierre-FranÇois van de Moortele & Denis Le Bihan, 1998. "Imaging unconscious semantic priming," Nature, Nature, vol. 395(6702), pages 597-600, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Gluth & Jörg Rieskamp & Christian Büchel, 2013. "Deciding Not to Decide: Computational and Neural Evidence for Hidden Behavior in Sequential Choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marine Hainguerlot & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2023. "How Overconfidence Bias Influences Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-04197403, HAL.
    2. Pablo Garaizar & Miguel A Vadillo & Diego López-de-Ipiña, 2014. "Presentation Accuracy of the Web Revisited: Animation Methods in the HTML5 Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Jürgen Kornmeier & Kriti Bhatia & Ellen Joos, 2021. "Top-down resolution of visual ambiguity – knowledge from the future or footprints from the past?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-29, October.
    4. Dickhaut, John & Smith, Vernon & Xin, Baohua & Rustichini, Aldo, 2013. "Human economic choice as costly information processing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 206-221.
    5. Zhewei Zhang & Chaoqun Yin & Tianming Yang, 2022. "Evidence accumulation occurs locally in the parietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Sheth, Jesal D., 2021. "Disclosure of information under competition: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 158-180.
    7. Ariel Goldstein & Ido Rivlin & Alon Goldstein & Yoni Pertzov & Ran R Hassin, 2020. "Predictions from masked motion with and without obstacles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-35, November.
    8. Floris P de Lange & Simon van Gaal & Victor A. F Lamme & Stanislas Dehaene, 2011. "How Awareness Changes the Relative Weights of Evidence During Human Decision-Making," Working Papers id:4656, eSocialSciences.
    9. Ulrik W Nash, 2014. "The Curious Anomaly of Skewed Judgment Distributions and Systematic Error in the Wisdom of Crowds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Robert Legenstein & Wolfgang Maass, 2014. "Ensembles of Spiking Neurons with Noise Support Optimal Probabilistic Inference in a Dynamically Changing Environment," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, October.
    11. Richard Morey & Jeffrey Rouder & Paul Speckman, 2009. "A Truncated-Probit Item Response Model for Estimating Psychophysical Thresholds," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 603-618, December.
    12. Ellen Joos & Anne Giersch & Kriti Bhatia & Sven P Heinrich & Ludger Tebartz van Elst & Jürgen Kornmeier, 2020. "Using the perceptual past to predict the perceptual future influences the perceived present – A novel ERP paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-35, September.
    13. Jesal Sheth, 2019. "Disclosure of information under competition: An experimental study," Discussion Papers 2019-04, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    14. Jeromos Vukov & Francisco C Santos & Jorge M Pacheco, 2011. "Incipient Cognition Solves the Spatial Reciprocity Conundrum of Cooperation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-5, March.
    15. Jill X O'Reilly & Saad Jbabdi & Matthew F S Rushworth & Timothy E J Behrens, 2013. "Brain Systems for Probabilistic and Dynamic Prediction: Computational Specificity and Integration," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Lars Buesing & Johannes Bill & Bernhard Nessler & Wolfgang Maass, 2011. "Neural Dynamics as Sampling: A Model for Stochastic Computation in Recurrent Networks of Spiking Neurons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    17. Shinichiro Kira & Houman Safaai & Ari S. Morcos & Stefano Panzeri & Christopher D. Harvey, 2023. "A distributed and efficient population code of mixed selectivity neurons for flexible navigation decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-28, December.
    18. Moffat, James & Medhurst, John, 2009. "Modelling of human decision-making in simulation models of conflict using experimental gaming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 1147-1157, August.
    19. Sebastian Gluth & Jörg Rieskamp & Christian Büchel, 2013. "Deciding Not to Decide: Computational and Neural Evidence for Hidden Behavior in Sequential Choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Scott E. Allen & Ren'e F. Kizilcec & A. David Redish, 2024. "A new model of trust based on neural information processing," Papers 2401.08064, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.