IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic combination of sensory and reward information under time pressure

Author

Listed:
  • Shiva Farashahi
  • Chih-Chung Ting
  • Chang-Hao Kao
  • Shih-Wei Wu
  • Alireza Soltani

Abstract

When making choices, collecting more information is beneficial but comes at the cost of sacrificing time that could be allocated to making other potentially rewarding decisions. To investigate how the brain balances these costs and benefits, we conducted a series of novel experiments in humans and simulated various computational models. Under six levels of time pressure, subjects made decisions either by integrating sensory information over time or by dynamically combining sensory and reward information over time. We found that during sensory integration, time pressure reduced performance as the deadline approached, and choice was more strongly influenced by the most recent sensory evidence. By fitting performance and reaction time with various models we found that our experimental results are more compatible with leaky integration of sensory information with an urgency signal or a decision process based on stochastic transitions between discrete states modulated by an urgency signal. When combining sensory and reward information, subjects spent less time on integration than optimally prescribed when reward decreased slowly over time, and the most recent evidence did not have the maximal influence on choice. The suboptimal pattern of reaction time was partially mitigated in an equivalent control experiment in which sensory integration over time was not required, indicating that the suboptimal response time was influenced by the perception of imperfect sensory integration. Meanwhile, during combination of sensory and reward information, performance did not drop as the deadline approached, and response time was not different between correct and incorrect trials. These results indicate a decision process different from what is involved in the integration of sensory information over time. Together, our results not only reveal limitations in sensory integration over time but also illustrate how these limitations influence dynamic combination of sensory and reward information.Author summary: Collecting more information seems beneficial for making most of the decisions we face in daily life. However, the benefit of collecting more information critically depends on how well we can integrate that information over time and how costly time is. Here we investigate how humans determine the amount of time to spend on collecting sensory information in order to make a perceptual decision when the reward for making a correct choice decreases over time. We show that sensory integration over time is not perfect and further deteriorates with time pressure. However, we also find evidence that when the cost of time has to be considered, decision processes are influenced by limitations in sensory integration.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiva Farashahi & Chih-Chung Ting & Chang-Hao Kao & Shih-Wei Wu & Alireza Soltani, 2018. "Dynamic combination of sensory and reward information under time pressure," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-26, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006070
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006070
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006070&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006070?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. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    2. Vassilios Christopoulos & Paul R Schrater, 2015. "Dynamic Integration of Value Information into a Common Probability Currency as a Theory for Flexible Decision Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-26, September.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Juan Gao & Rebecca Tortell & James L McClelland, 2011. "Dynamic Integration of Reward and Stimulus Information in Perceptual Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    6. Ordonez, Lisa & Benson, Lehman, 1997. "Decisions under Time Pressure: How Time Constraint Affects Risky Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 121-140, August.
    7. Leor N. Katz & Jacob L. Yates & Jonathan W. Pillow & Alexander C. Huk, 2016. "Dissociated functional significance of decision-related activity in the primate dorsal stream," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 285-288, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    2. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2019. "How Time Constraint Affects the Disposition Effect?," EconStor Preprints 194618, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    3. Gillitzer, Christian & Sinning, Mathias, 2020. "Nudging businesses to pay their taxes: Does timing matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 284-300.
    4. Young, Diana L. & Goodie, Adam S. & Hall, Daniel B. & Wu, Eric, 2012. "Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 179-188.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    6. Jeremiah, Rupin, 2017. "DECISION EVALUATION OF INNOVATION OFFSHORING: Swedish R&D in India," SSE Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2017:3, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 07 Dec 2017.
    7. Arkady Zgonnikov & Nadim A. A. Atiya & Denis O'Hora & Iñaki Rañò & KongFatt Wong-Lin, 2019. "Beyond reach: Do symmetric changes in motor costs affect decision making? A registered report," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 455-469, July.
    8. Martin G. Kocher & David Schindler & Stefan T. Trautmann & Yilong Xu, 2019. "Risk, time pressure, and selection effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 216-246, March.
    9. Paul McGuinness & Kevin Lam & João Vieito, 2015. "Gender and other major board characteristics in China: Explaining corporate dividend policy and governance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 989-1038, December.
    10. Gilles Grolleau & Angela Sutan & Sana El Harbi & Marwa Jedidi, 2018. "Do We Need More Time To Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 400-409, October.
    11. Marcelo Bergolo & Rodrigo Ceni & Guillermo Cruces & Matias Giaccobasso & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2023. "Tax Audits as Scarecrows: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 110-153, February.
    12. Guan, Hongyu & Yang, Tianli & Zhang, Yunyun & Shi, Yaojiang, 2023. "Time's ticking! Effects of deadline on the utilization of health services: Evidence from a cluster-randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    13. Lee, Yu Na & Bellemare, Marc F. & Just, David R., 2018. "Production Decision Making under Price Ambiguity: An Experimental Evidence," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274475, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Philipp Doerrenberg & Jan Schmitz, 2017. "Tax compliance and information provision. A field experiment with small firms," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 1(1), pages 47-54, February.
    15. Saqib, Najam U. & Chan, Eugene Y., 2015. "Time pressure reverses risk preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 58-68.
    16. Haji, Anouar El & Krawczyk, Michał & Sylwestrzak, Marta & Zawojska, Ewa, 2019. "Time pressure and risk taking in auctions: A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 68-79.
    17. Vossler, Christian A. & McKee, Michael & Bruner, David M., 2021. "Behavioral effects of tax withholding on tax compliance: Implications for information initiatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 301-319.
    18. Hidalgo-Hidalgo, Marisa & Jiménez, Natalia & López-Pintado, Dunia, 2021. "Social influence and position effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 113-131.
    19. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    20. Zhang, Zaisheng & Song, Fang & Song, Zongbin, 2020. "Promoting knowledge sharing in the workplace: Punishment v. reward," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    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:pcbi00:1006070. 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.