IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Suboptimal Criterion Learning in Static and Dynamic Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Elyse H Norton
  • Stephen M Fleming
  • Nathaniel D Daw
  • Michael S Landy

Abstract

Humans often make decisions based on uncertain sensory information. Signal detection theory (SDT) describes detection and discrimination decisions as a comparison of stimulus “strength” to a fixed decision criterion. However, recent research suggests that current responses depend on the recent history of stimuli and previous responses, suggesting that the decision criterion is updated trial-by-trial. The mechanisms underpinning criterion setting remain unknown. Here, we examine how observers learn to set a decision criterion in an orientation-discrimination task under both static and dynamic conditions. To investigate mechanisms underlying trial-by-trial criterion placement, we introduce a novel task in which participants explicitly set the criterion, and compare it to a more traditional discrimination task, allowing us to model this explicit indication of criterion dynamics. In each task, stimuli were ellipses with principal orientations drawn from two categories: Gaussian distributions with different means and equal variance. In the covert-criterion task, observers categorized a displayed ellipse. In the overt-criterion task, observers adjusted the orientation of a line that served as the discrimination criterion for a subsequently presented ellipse. We compared performance to the ideal Bayesian learner and several suboptimal models that varied in both computational and memory demands. Under static and dynamic conditions, we found that, in both tasks, observers used suboptimal learning rules. In most conditions, a model in which the recent history of past samples determines a belief about category means fit the data best for most observers and on average. Our results reveal dynamic adjustment of discrimination criterion, even after prolonged training, and indicate how decision criteria are updated over time.Author Summary: Understanding how humans make decisions based on uncertain sensory information is crucial to understanding how humans interpret and act on the world. Signal detection theory models discrimination and detection decisions as a comparison of “stimulus strength” to a fixed criterion. In a world that is constantly changing a static criterion makes little sense. We investigate this as a problem of learning: How is the decision criterion set when various aspects of the context are unknown (e.g., category means and variances)? We examine criterion learning in both static and dynamic environments. In addition to a more traditional discrimination task in which the criterion is a theoretical construct and unobservable, we use a novel task in which participants must explicitly set the criterion before being shown the stimulus. We show that independent of environment and task, observers dynamically update the decision criterion, even after prolonged training in a static environment. Our results provide evidence against an assumption of stability and have implications for how psychophysical data are analyzed and interpreted and how humans make discrimination decisions under uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Elyse H Norton & Stephen M Fleming & Nathaniel D Daw & Michael S Landy, 2017. "Suboptimal Criterion Learning in Static and Dynamic Environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005304
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005304
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005304&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005304?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. Daniel E Acuña & Paul Schrater, 2010. "Structure Learning in Human Sequential Decision-Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-12, December.
    2. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika Van Der Linde, 2002. "Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(4), pages 583-639, October.
    3. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    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. 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.

    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. Amir Dezfouli & Kristi Griffiths & Fabio Ramos & Peter Dayan & Bernard W Balleine, 2019. "Models that learn how humans learn: The case of decision-making and its disorders," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-33, June.
    2. Buddhavarapu, Prasad & Bansal, Prateek & Prozzi, Jorge A., 2021. "A new spatial count data model with time-varying parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 566-586.
    3. Mumtaz, Haroon & Theodoridis, Konstantinos, 2017. "Common and country specific economic uncertainty," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 205-216.
    4. Jesse Elliott & Zemin Bai & Shu-Ching Hsieh & Shannon E Kelly & Li Chen & Becky Skidmore & Said Yousef & Carine Zheng & David J Stewart & George A Wells, 2020. "ALK inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    6. Francois Olivier & Laval Guillaume, 2011. "Deviance Information Criteria for Model Selection in Approximate Bayesian Computation," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, July.
    7. Raggi, Davide & Bordignon, Silvano, 2012. "Long memory and nonlinearities in realized volatility: A Markov switching approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3730-3742.
    8. Angelica Gianfreda & Francesco Ravazzolo & Luca Rossini, 2023. "Large Time‐Varying Volatility Models for Hourly Electricity Prices," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 545-573, June.
    9. Rubio, F.J. & Steel, M.F.J., 2011. "Inference for grouped data with a truncated skew-Laplace distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 3218-3231, December.
    10. Alessandri, Piergiorgio & Mumtaz, Haroon, 2019. "Financial regimes and uncertainty shocks," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 31-46.
    11. Padilla, Juan L. & Azevedo, Caio L.N. & Lachos, Victor H., 2018. "Multidimensional multiple group IRT models with skew normal latent trait distributions," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 250-268.
    12. Svetlana V. Tishkovskaya & Paul G. Blackwell, 2021. "Bayesian estimation of heterogeneous environments from animal movement data," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), September.
    13. David Macro & Jeroen Weesie, 2016. "Inequalities between Others Do Matter: Evidence from Multiplayer Dictator Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.
    14. Tautenhahn, Susanne & Heilmeier, Hermann & Jung, Martin & Kahl, Anja & Kattge, Jens & Moffat, Antje & Wirth, Christian, 2012. "Beyond distance-invariant survival in inverse recruitment modeling: A case study in Siberian Pinus sylvestris forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 233(C), pages 90-103.
    15. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.
    16. Simon Mak & Derek Bingham & Yi Lu, 2016. "A regional compound Poisson process for hurricane and tropical storm damage," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(5), pages 677-703, November.
    17. Xi, Yanhui & Peng, Hui & Qin, Yemei & Xie, Wenbiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2015. "Bayesian analysis of heavy-tailed market microstructure model and its application in stock markets," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 141-153.
    18. Huang, Zhaodong & Chien, Steven & Zhu, Wei & Zheng, Pengjun, 2022. "Scheduling wheel inspection for sustainable urban rail transit operation: A Bayesian approach," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 586(C).
    19. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    20. Jorge I. Figueroa-Zúñiga & Cristian L. Bayes & Víctor Leiva & Shuangzhe Liu, 2022. "Robust beta regression modeling with errors-in-variables: a Bayesian approach and numerical applications," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 919-942, June.

    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:pcbi00:1005304. 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.