IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inter-trial effects in visual pop-out search: Factorial comparison of Bayesian updating models

Author

Listed:
  • Fredrik Allenmark
  • Hermann J Müller
  • Zhuanghua Shi

Abstract

Many previous studies on visual search have reported inter-trial effects, that is, observers respond faster when some target property, such as a defining feature or dimension, or the response associated with the target repeats versus changes across consecutive trial episodes. However, what processes drive these inter-trial effects is still controversial. Here, we investigated this question using a combination of Bayesian modeling of belief updating and evidence accumulation modeling in perceptual decision-making. In three visual singleton (‘pop-out’) search experiments, we explored how the probability of the response-critical states of the search display (e.g., target presence/absence) and the repetition/switch of the target-defining dimension (color/ orientation) affect reaction time distributions. The results replicated the mean reaction time (RT) inter-trial and dimension repetition/switch effects that have been reported in previous studies. Going beyond this, to uncover the underlying mechanisms, we used the Drift-Diffusion Model (DDM) and the Linear Approach to Threshold with Ergodic Rate (LATER) model to explain the RT distributions in terms of decision bias (starting point) and information processing speed (evidence accumulation rate). We further investigated how these different aspects of the decision-making process are affected by different properties of stimulus history, giving rise to dissociable inter-trial effects. We approached this question by (i) combining each perceptual decision making model (DDM or LATER) with different updating models, each specifying a plausible rule for updating of either the starting point or the rate, based on stimulus history, and (ii) comparing every possible combination of trial-wise updating mechanism and perceptual decision model in a factorial model comparison. Consistently across experiments, we found that the (recent) history of the response-critical property influences the initial decision bias, while repetition/switch of the target-defining dimension affects the accumulation rate, likely reflecting an implicit ‘top-down’ modulation process. This provides strong evidence of a disassociation between response- and dimension-based inter-trial effects.Author summary: When a perceptual task is performed repeatedly, performance becomes faster and more accurate when there is little or no change of critical stimulus attributes across consecutive trials. This phenomenon has been explored in previous studies on visual ‘pop-out’ search, showing that participants can find and respond to a unique target object among distractors faster when properties of the target are repeated across trials. However, the processes that underlie these inter-trial effects are still not clearly understood. Here, we approached this question by performing three visual search experiments and applying mathematical modeling to the data. We combined models of perceptual decision making with Bayesian updating rules for the parameters of the decision making models, to capture the processing of visual information on each individual trial as well as possible mechanisms through which an influence can be carried forward from previous trials. A systematic comparison of how well different combinations of models explain the data revealed the best model to assume that perceptual decisions are biased based on the response-critical stimulus property on recent trials, while repetition of the visual dimension in which the target differs from the distractors (e.g., color or orientation) increases the speed of stimulus processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Fredrik Allenmark & Hermann J Müller & Zhuanghua Shi, 2018. "Inter-trial effects in visual pop-out search: Factorial comparison of Bayesian updating models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006328
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006328
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006328&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006328?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. Tianming Yang & Michael N. Shadlen, 2007. "Probabilistic reasoning by neurons," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7148), pages 1075-1080, June.
    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. Marine Hainguerlot & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2023. "How Overconfidence Bias Influences Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-04197403, HAL.
    2. Dickhaut, John & Smith, Vernon & Xin, Baohua & Rustichini, Aldo, 2013. "Human economic choice as costly information processing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 206-221.
    3. Zhewei Zhang & Chaoqun Yin & Tianming Yang, 2022. "Evidence accumulation occurs locally in the parietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Floris P de Lange & Simon van Gaal & Victor A. F Lamme & Stanislas Dehaene, 2011. "How Awareness Changes the Relative Weights of Evidence During Human Decision-Making," Working Papers id:4656, eSocialSciences.
    5. Ulrik W Nash, 2014. "The Curious Anomaly of Skewed Judgment Distributions and Systematic Error in the Wisdom of Crowds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Robert Legenstein & Wolfgang Maass, 2014. "Ensembles of Spiking Neurons with Noise Support Optimal Probabilistic Inference in a Dynamically Changing Environment," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Jeromos Vukov & Francisco C Santos & Jorge M Pacheco, 2011. "Incipient Cognition Solves the Spatial Reciprocity Conundrum of Cooperation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-5, March.
    8. Jill X O'Reilly & Saad Jbabdi & Matthew F S Rushworth & Timothy E J Behrens, 2013. "Brain Systems for Probabilistic and Dynamic Prediction: Computational Specificity and Integration," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Floris P de Lange & Simon van Gaal & Victor A F Lamme & Stanislas Dehaene, 2011. "How Awareness Changes the Relative Weights of Evidence During Human Decision-Making," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-10, November.
    10. Lars Buesing & Johannes Bill & Bernhard Nessler & Wolfgang Maass, 2011. "Neural Dynamics as Sampling: A Model for Stochastic Computation in Recurrent Networks of Spiking Neurons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Shinichiro Kira & Houman Safaai & Ari S. Morcos & Stefano Panzeri & Christopher D. Harvey, 2023. "A distributed and efficient population code of mixed selectivity neurons for flexible navigation decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-28, December.
    12. Moffat, James & Medhurst, John, 2009. "Modelling of human decision-making in simulation models of conflict using experimental gaming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 1147-1157, August.
    13. Sebastian Gluth & Jörg Rieskamp & Christian Büchel, 2013. "Deciding Not to Decide: Computational and Neural Evidence for Hidden Behavior in Sequential Choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Scott E. Allen & Ren'e F. Kizilcec & A. David Redish, 2024. "A new model of trust based on neural information processing," Papers 2401.08064, arXiv.org.
    15. Terence C. Burnham & Jay Phelan, 2022. "Ordinaries 10," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 181-202, October.

    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:pcbi00:1006328. 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.