IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computational Phenotyping of Two-Person Interactions Reveals Differential Neural Response to Depth-of-Thought

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Xiang
  • Debajyoti Ray
  • Terry Lohrenz
  • Peter Dayan
  • P Read Montague

Abstract

Reciprocating exchange with other humans requires individuals to infer the intentions of their partners. Despite the importance of this ability in healthy cognition and its impact in disease, the dimensions employed and computations involved in such inferences are not clear. We used a computational theory-of-mind model to classify styles of interaction in 195 pairs of subjects playing a multi-round economic exchange game. This classification produces an estimate of a subject's depth-of-thought in the game (low, medium, high), a parameter that governs the richness of the models they build of their partner. Subjects in each category showed distinct neural correlates of learning signals associated with different depths-of-thought. The model also detected differences in depth-of-thought between two groups of healthy subjects: one playing patients with psychiatric disease and the other playing healthy controls. The neural response categories identified by this computational characterization of theory-of-mind may yield objective biomarkers useful in the identification and characterization of pathologies that perturb the capacity to model and interact with other humans. Author Summary: Human social interactions are extraordinarily rich and complex. The ability to infer the intentions of others is essential for successful social interactions. Although most of our inferences about others are silent and subtle, traces of their effects can be found in the behavior we exhibit in various tasks, notably repeated economic exchange games. In this study, we use a computational model that uses an explicit form of other-modeling to classify styles of play in a large cohort of subjects engaging in such a game. We classify players according to their depth of recursive reasoning (depth-of-thought), finding three groups whose performance throughout the task differed according to several measures. Neuroimaging results based on the model classification show a differential neural response to depth-of-thought. The model also detected differences in depth-of-thought between two groups of healthy subjects: one playing patients with psychiatric disease and the other playing healthy controls. These results demonstrate the power of a quantitative approach to examining behavioral heterogeneity during social exchange, and may provide useful biomarkers to characterize mental disorders when the capacity to make inferences about others is impaired.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Xiang & Debajyoti Ray & Terry Lohrenz & Peter Dayan & P Read Montague, 2012. "Computational Phenotyping of Two-Person Interactions Reveals Differential Neural Response to Depth-of-Thought," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002841
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002841
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002841&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002841?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. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Wako Yoshida & Ray J Dolan & Karl J Friston, 2008. "Game Theory of Mind," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    4. Misha Koshelev & Terry Lohrenz & Marina Vannucci & P Read Montague, 2010. "Biosensor Approach to Psychopathology Classification," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Timothy E. J. Behrens & Laurence T. Hunt & Mark W. Woolrich & Matthew F. S. Rushworth, 2008. "Associative learning of social value," Nature, Nature, vol. 456(7219), pages 245-249, November.
    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. Marie Devaine & Guillaume Hollard & Jean Daunizeau, 2014. "The Social Bayesian Brain: Does Mentalizing Make a Difference When We Learn?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Andreas Hula & P Read Montague & Peter Dayan, 2015. "Monte Carlo Planning Method Estimates Planning Horizons during Interactive Social Exchange," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-38, June.
    3. Andreea O Diaconescu & Christoph Mathys & Lilian A E Weber & Jean Daunizeau & Lars Kasper & Ekaterina I Lomakina & Ernst Fehr & Klaas E Stephan, 2014. "Inferring on the Intentions of Others by Hierarchical Bayesian Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Gabriele Bellucci, 2022. "A Model of Trust," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-27, May.
    5. Michael Moutoussis & Raymond J Dolan & Peter Dayan, 2016. "How People Use Social Information to Find out What to Want in the Paradigmatic Case of Inter-temporal Preferences," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.

    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. Andreas Hula & P Read Montague & Peter Dayan, 2015. "Monte Carlo Planning Method Estimates Planning Horizons during Interactive Social Exchange," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-38, June.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:844-897 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Todd Larson Landes & Piers Douglas Howe & Yoshihisa Kashima, 2021. "A hierarchy of mindreading strategies in joint action participation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 844-897, July.
    4. Marie Devaine & Guillaume Hollard & Jean Daunizeau, 2014. "The Social Bayesian Brain: Does Mentalizing Make a Difference When We Learn?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Andreas Hula & Iris Vilares & Terry Lohrenz & Peter Dayan & P Read Montague, 2018. "A model of risk and mental state shifts during social interaction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Kishida, Kenneth T. & Montague, P. Read, 2013. "Economic probes of mental function and the extraction of computational phenotypes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 234-241.
    7. Benito Arruñada & Marcos Casarin & Francesca Pancotto, 2012. "Are Self-regarding Subjects More Rational?," Working Papers 611, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 329-348.
    9. Yuval Heller & Eyal Winter, 2020. "Biased-Belief Equilibrium," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-40, May.
    10. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    11. Breitmoser, Yves, 2019. "Knowing me, imagining you: Projection and overbidding in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 423-447.
    12. Lee, Natalie, 2023. "Feigning ignorance for long-term gains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 42-71.
    13. Bayer, Ralph C. & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Logical omniscience at the laboratory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-49.
    14. Benndorf, Volker & Kübler, Dorothea & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2015. "Privacy concerns, voluntary disclosure of information, and unraveling: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-59.
    15. Sanjeev Goyal & Penélope Hernández & Guillem Martínez-Cánovas & Frédéric Moisan & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera & Angel Sánchez, 2021. "Integration and diversity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 387-413, June.
      • Goyal, S. & Hernández, P. & Muñnez-Cánovasz, G. & Moisan, F. & Muñoz-Herrera, M. & Sánchez, A., 2017. "Integration and Diversity," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1721, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
      • Sanjeev Goyal & Penélope Hernández & Guillem Martínez-Cánovas & Frederic Moisan & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera & Angel Sánchez, 2021. "Integration and Diversity," Post-Print hal-03188210, HAL.
      • Sanjeev Goyal & Penelope Hernandez & Guillem Martinez-Canovas & Frederic Moisan & Manuel Munoz-Herrera & Angel Sanchez, 2019. "Integration and Diversity," Working Papers 20190025, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Sep 2020.
      • Sanjeev Goyal & Pénélope Hernández & Guillem Martínez-Cánovas & Frédéric Moisan & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera & Ángel Sánchez, 2021. "Integration and diversity," Post-Print halshs-03051962, HAL.
    16. repec:awi:wpaper:0469 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Joshua Zonca & Giorgio Coricelli & Luca Polonio, 2019. "Does exposure to alternative decision rules change gaze patterns and behavioral strategies in games?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 14-25, August.
    18. Polonio, Luca & Coricelli, Giorgio, 2019. "Testing the level of consistency between choices and beliefs in games using eye-tracking," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 566-586.
    19. Maas, Victor S. & Yin, Huaxiang, 2022. "Finding partners in crime? How transparency about managers’ behavior affects employee collusion," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    20. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    21. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    22. Andreea O Diaconescu & Christoph Mathys & Lilian A E Weber & Jean Daunizeau & Lars Kasper & Ekaterina I Lomakina & Ernst Fehr & Klaas E Stephan, 2014. "Inferring on the Intentions of Others by Hierarchical Bayesian Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.

    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:pcbi00:1002841. 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.