IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1004667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-monotonic Temporal-Weighting Indicates a Dynamically Modulated Evidence-Integration Mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Zohar Z Bronfman
  • Noam Brezis
  • Marius Usher

Abstract

Perceptual decisions are thought to be mediated by a mechanism of sequential sampling and integration of noisy evidence whose temporal weighting profile affects the decision quality. To examine temporal weighting, participants were presented with two brightness-fluctuating disks for 1, 2 or 3 seconds and were requested to choose the overall brighter disk at the end of each trial. By employing a signal-perturbation method, which deploys across trials a set of systematically controlled temporal dispersions of the same overall signal, we were able to quantify the participants’ temporal weighting profile. Results indicate that, for intervals of 1 or 2 sec, participants exhibit a primacy-bias. However, for longer stimuli (3-sec) the temporal weighting profile is non-monotonic, with concurrent primacy and recency, which is inconsistent with the predictions of previously suggested computational models of perceptual decision-making (drift-diffusion and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes). We propose a novel, dynamic variant of the leaky-competing accumulator model as a potential account for this finding, and we discuss potential neural mechanisms.Author Summary: An important process that supports decision-making is the integration of evidence over time, which optimizes decision quality by enhancing the signal to noise ratio. The nature of this process depends critically on the weight given to evidence across time: which information has more impact—early, intermediate or late? We used a novel psychophysical technique, which relies on differential temporal dispersion of evidence. This technique allowed us to extract the temporal weights people assign to the flow of evidence. We find that in decisions that are based on relatively short streams of evidence, people gave stronger weight to early information (primacy). Surprisingly, however, with longer streams of evidence, people assigned higher weights to early and late evidence, while underweighting intermediate evidence. This non-monotonic pattern of evidence integration is not predicted by the existing models of decision-making, posing a challenge to current theories. We propose a novel model that accounts for non-monotonic weighting, based on a change in leak and response-competition with integration-time, and we discuss potential neural mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Zohar Z Bronfman & Noam Brezis & Marius Usher, 2016. "Non-monotonic Temporal-Weighting Indicates a Dynamically Modulated Evidence-Integration Mechanism," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004667
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004667
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004667&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004667?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. Arbora Resulaj & Roozbeh Kiani & Daniel M. Wolpert & Michael N. Shadlen, 2009. "Changes of mind in decision-making," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7261), pages 263-266, September.
    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. Richard D Lange & Ankani Chattoraj & Jeffrey M Beck & Jacob L Yates & Ralf M Haefner, 2021. "A confirmation bias in perceptual decision-making due to hierarchical approximate inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-30, November.
    2. Alexander Fischenich & Jan Hots & Jesko Verhey & Daniel Oberfeld, 2019. "Temporal weights in loudness: Investigation of the effects of background noise and sound level," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.

    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. Manuel Rausch & Michael Zehetleitner, 2019. "The folded X-pattern is not necessarily a statistical signature of decision confidence," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Adrian M Haith & David M Huberdeau & John W Krakauer, 2015. "Hedging Your Bets: Intermediate Movements as Optimal Behavior in the Context of an Incomplete Decision," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Andrea Insabato & Mario Pannunzi & Gustavo Deco, 2017. "Multiple Choice Neurodynamical Model of the Uncertain Option Task," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-29, January.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:527-539 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Market Instability, Investor Sentiment, And Probability Judgment Error in Index Option Prices," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 71, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    6. J. Tyler Boyd-Meredith & Alex T. Piet & Emily Jane Dennis & Ahmed El Hady & Carlos D. Brody, 2022. "Stable choice coding in rat frontal orienting fields across model-predicted changes of mind," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Marina Martinez-Garcia & Andrea Insabato & Mario Pannunzi & Jose L Pardo-Vazquez & Carlos Acuña & Gustavo Deco, 2015. "The Encoding of Decision Difficulty and Movement Time in the Primate Premotor Cortex," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    8. Nathan F Lepora & Giovanni Pezzulo, 2015. "Embodied Choice: How Action Influences Perceptual Decision Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, April.
    9. Kobe Desender & Luc Vermeylen & Tom Verguts, 2022. "Dynamic influences on static measures of metacognition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Sebastian Bitzer & Jelle Bruineberg & Stefan J Kiebel, 2015. "A Bayesian Attractor Model for Perceptual Decision Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-35, August.
    11. Diana Burk & James N Ingram & David W Franklin & Michael N Shadlen & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "Motor Effort Alters Changes of Mind in Sensorimotor Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, March.
    12. Shariq N Iqbal & Lun Yin & Caroline B Drucker & Qian Kuang & Jean-François Gariépy & Michael L Platt & John M Pearson, 2019. "Latent goal models for dynamic strategic interaction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Cook, Jeffrey J. & Cruce, Jesse & O'Shaughnessy, Eric & Ardani, Kristen & Margolis, Robert, 2021. "Exploring the link between project delays and cancelation rates in the U.S. rooftop solar industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. Stefan Scherbaum & Maja Dshemuchadse & Susanne Leiberg & Thomas Goschke, 2013. "Harder than Expected: Increased Conflict in Clearly Disadvantageous Delayed Choices in a Computer Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-7, November.
    15. Gregory J. Koop, 2013. "An assessment of the temporal dynamics of moral decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 527-539, September.
    16. Brocas, Isabelle, 2012. "Information processing and decision-making: Evidence from the brain sciences and implications for economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 292-310.
    17. Santiago Alonso-Diaz & Jessica F Cantlon & Steven T Piantadosi, 2018. "A threshold-free model of numerosity comparisons," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, April.
    18. Lirong Qiu & Jie Su & Yinmei Ni & Yang Bai & Xuesong Zhang & Xiaoli Li & Xiaohong Wan, 2018. "The neural system of metacognition accompanying decision-making in the prefrontal cortex," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-27, April.
    19. Lluís Hernández-Navarro & Ainhoa Hermoso-Mendizabal & Daniel Duque & Jaime de la Rocha & Alexandre Hyafil, 2021. "Proactive and reactive accumulation-to-bound processes compete during perceptual decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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:pcbi00:1004667. 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.