Similarity and Number of Alternatives in the Random-dot Motion Paradigm

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2012 Jan 31

PMID 22287207

Citations 14

Authors

Leendert Van Maanen

Raoul P P P Grasman

Birte U Forstmann

Max C Keuken

Scott D Brown

Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The popular random-dot motion (RDM) task has recently been applied to multiple-choice perceptual decision-making. However, changes in the number of alternatives on an RDM display lead to changes in the similarity between the alternatives, complicating the study of multiple-choice effects. To disentangle the effects of similarity and number of alternatives, we analyzed behavior in the RDM task using an optimal-observer model. The model applies Bayesian principles to give an account of how changes in the stimulus influence the decision-making process. A possible neural implementation of the optimal-observer model is discussed, and we provide behavioral data that support the model. We verify the predictions from the optimal-observer model by fitting a descriptive model of choice behavior (the linear ballistic accumulator model) to the behavioral data. The results show that (a) there is a natural interaction in the RDM task between similarity and the number of alternatives; (b) the number of alternatives influences “response caution”, whereas the similarity between the alternatives influences “drift rate”; and (c) decisions in the RDM task are near optimal when participants are presented with multiple alternatives.

Citing Articles

Probabilistic causal reasoning under time pressure.

Kolvoort I, Fisher E, van Rooij R, Schulz K, Van Maanen L PLoS One. 2024; 19(4):e0297011.

PMID: 38603716 PMC: 11008876. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297011.

Developing control-theoretic objectives for large-scale brain dynamics and cognitive enhancement.

Singh M, Cole M, Braver T, Ching S Annu Rev Control. 2024; 54:363-376.

PMID: 38250171 PMC: 10798814. DOI: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2022.05.001.

Non-parametric mixture modeling of cognitive psychological data: A new method to disentangle hidden strategies.

Archambeau K, Couto J, Van Maanen L Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(5):2232-2248.

PMID: 36219308 PMC: 10439044. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01837-0.

Degenerate boundaries for multiple-alternative decisions.

Baker S, Griffith T, Lepora N Nat Commun. 2022; 13(1):5066.

PMID: 36038538 PMC: 9424291. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-32741-y.

Sequential sampling models without random between-trial variability: the racing diffusion model of speeded decision making.

Tillman G, Van Zandt T, Logan G Psychon Bull Rev. 2020; 27(5):911-936.

PMID: 32424622 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01719-6.

References

Mulder M, Bos D, Weusten J, Van Belle J, van Dijk S, Simen P . Basic impairments in regulating the speed-accuracy tradeoff predict symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2010; 68(12):1114-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.031. View

Ball K, Sekuler R . A specific and enduring improvement in visual motion discrimination. Science. 1982; 218(4573):697-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.7134968. View

Hanks T, Mazurek M, Kiani R, Hopp E, Shadlen M . Elapsed decision time affects the weighting of prior probability in a perceptual decision task. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(17):6339-52. PMC: 3356114. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5613-10.2011. View

Shadlen M, Newsome W . Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J Neurophysiol. 2001; 86(4):1916-36. DOI: 10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.1916. View

TEICHNER W, Krebs M . Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychol Rev. 1974; 81(1):75-98. DOI: 10.1037/h0035867. View

Gold J, Shadlen M . Banburismus and the brain: decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron. 2002; 36(2):299-308. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00971-6. View

Brown S, Heathcote A . The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn Psychol. 2008; 57(3):153-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002. View

Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

Anstis S . The perception of apparent movement. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1980; 290(1038):153-68. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1980.0088. View

10.

Simen P, Contreras D, Buck C, Hu P, Holmes P, Cohen J . Reward rate optimization in two-alternative decision making: empirical tests of theoretical predictions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009; 35(6):1865-97. PMC: 2791916. DOI: 10.1037/a0016926. View

11.

Loftus G, Masson M . Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 1(4):476-90. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210951. View

12.

Forstmann B, Anwander A, Schafer A, Neumann J, Brown S, Wagenmakers E . Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(36):15916-20. PMC: 2936628. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1004932107. View

13.

Swindale N . Orientation tuning curves: empirical description and estimation of parameters. Biol Cybern. 1998; 78(1):45-56. DOI: 10.1007/s004220050411. View

14.

Beck J, Ma W, Kiani R, Hanks T, Churchland A, Roitman J . Probabilistic population codes for Bayesian decision making. Neuron. 2008; 60(6):1142-52. PMC: 2742921. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.021. View

15.

Niwa M, Ditterich J . Perceptual decisions between multiple directions of visual motion. J Neurosci. 2008; 28(17):4435-45. PMC: 6670944. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5564-07.2008. View

16.

Roitman J, Shadlen M . Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J Neurosci. 2002; 22(21):9475-89. PMC: 6758024. View

17.

Van Maanen L, Brown S, Eichele T, Wagenmakers E, Ho T, Serences J . Neural correlates of trial-to-trial fluctuations in response caution. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(48):17488-95. PMC: 6623798. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2924-11.2011. View

18.

Pilly P, Seitz A . What a difference a parameter makes: a psychophysical comparison of random dot motion algorithms. Vision Res. 2009; 49(13):1599-612. PMC: 2789308. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.03.019. View

19.

Wagenmakers E, Farrell S . AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 11(1):192-6. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206482. View

20.

Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen J . The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol Rev. 2006; 113(4):700-65. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.700. View