IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contradictory Behavioral Biases Result from the Influence of Past Stimuli on Perception

Author

Listed:
  • Ofri Raviv
  • Itay Lieder
  • Yonatan Loewenstein
  • Merav Ahissar

Abstract

Biases such as the preference of a particular response for no obvious reason, are an integral part of psychophysics. Such biases have been reported in the common two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) experiments, where participants are instructed to compare two consecutively presented stimuli. However, the principles underlying these biases are largely unknown and previous studies have typically used ad-hoc explanations to account for them. Here we consider human performance in the 2AFC tone frequency discrimination task, utilizing two standard protocols. In both protocols, each trial contains a reference stimulus. In one (Reference-Lower protocol), the frequency of the reference stimulus is always lower than that of the comparison stimulus, whereas in the other (Reference protocol), the frequency of the reference stimulus is either lower or higher than that of the comparison stimulus. We find substantial interval biases. Namely, participants perform better when the reference is in a specific interval. Surprisingly, the biases in the two experiments are opposite: performance is better when the reference is in the first interval in the Reference protocol, but is better when the reference is second in the Reference-Lower protocol. This inconsistency refutes previous accounts of the interval bias, and is resolved when experiments statistics is considered. Viewing perception as incorporation of sensory input with prior knowledge accumulated during the experiment accounts for the seemingly contradictory biases both qualitatively and quantitatively. The success of this account implies that even simple discriminations reflect a combination of sensory limitations, memory limitations, and the ability to utilize stimuli statistics.Author Summary: In this study we explain a previously reported yet unexplained bias in two-alternative discrimination experiments, in which participants are instructed to compare two consecutively presented stimuli. In such experiments, performance is often better when the repeating reference stimulus is in a specific interval, either first or second. However, the "favored" interval differs across studies, depending on seemingly minute details of the experimental protocol. We show that this inconsistency is fully explained as the residual influence of stimuli presented in previous trials, and explain why different experimental protocols yield different results. These findings show that even in the two-alternative procedure, originally developed to eliminate the impact of previous trials, performance is systematically affected by participants' ability to utilize the experiment's statistics of the stimuli, suggesting that sensory processes cannot be studied in isolation, or "out of context": even in the simplest discriminations they involve complex statistical learning that affects participants' performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ofri Raviv & Itay Lieder & Yonatan Loewenstein & Merav Ahissar, 2014. "Contradictory Behavioral Biases Result from the Influence of Past Stimuli on Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003948
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003948
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003948&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003948?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. Paymon Ashourian & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2011. "Bayesian Inference Underlies the Contraction Bias in Delayed Comparison Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-8, May.
    2. Ofri Raviv & Merav Ahissar & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2012. "How Recent History Affects Perception: The Normative Approach and Its Heuristic Approximation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, 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. I. Hachen & S. Reinartz & R. Brasselet & A. Stroligo & M. E. Diamond, 2021. "Dynamics of history-dependent perceptual judgment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Sagi Jaffe-Dax & Ofri Raviv & Nori Jacoby & Yonatan Loewenstein & Merav Ahissar, 2015. "A computational model of implicit memory captures dyslexics’ perceptual deficits," Discussion Paper Series dp690, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    2. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2020. "Omitted-variable bias and other matters in the defense of the category adjustment model: A comment on Crawford (2019)," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Ofri Raviv & Merav Ahissar & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2012. "How Recent History Affects Perception: The Normative Approach and Its Heuristic Approximation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Sarah R., Allred & L. Elizabeth, Crawford & Sean, Duffy & John, Smith, 2015. "Working memory and spatial judgments: Cognitive load increases the central tendency bias," MPRA Paper 63520, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Sean Duffy & John Smith, 2020. "On the category adjustment model: another look at Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Vevea (2000)," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 163-193, June.
    6. Ofri Raviv & Merav Ahissar & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2012. "How recent history affects perception: the normative approach and its heuristic approximation," Discussion Paper Series dp628, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    7. Sebastian Reinartz & Arash Fassihi & Maria Ravera & Luciano Paz & Francesca Pulecchi & Marco Gigante & Mathew E. Diamond, 2024. "Direct contribution of the sensory cortex to the judgment of stimulus duration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. I. Hachen & S. Reinartz & R. Brasselet & A. Stroligo & M. E. Diamond, 2021. "Dynamics of history-dependent perceptual judgment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Elyse H Norton & Luigi Acerbi & Wei Ji Ma & Michael S Landy, 2019. "Human online adaptation to changes in prior probability," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    10. Adrien Wohrer & Christian K Machens, 2015. "On the Number of Neurons and Time Scale of Integration Underlying the Formation of Percepts in the Brain," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-38, March.
    11. Urit Gordon & Shimon Marom & Naama Brenner, 2019. "Visual detection of time-varying signals: Opposing biases and their timescales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Allred, Sarah & Crawford, L. Elizabeth & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2014. "Cognitive constraints increase estimation biases: Cognitive load and delay in judgments," MPRA Paper 58314, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:pcbi00:1003948. 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.