Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making and Associated Confidence Judgments Are Adapted to Task Demands

Overview

Journal Front Neurosci

Date 2020 Sep 9

PMID 32903672

Citations 5

Authors

Rashed Harun

Elizabeth Jun

Heui Hye Park

Preetham Ganupuru

Adam B Goldring

Timothy D Hanks

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Decision making often involves choosing actions based on relevant evidence. This can benefit from focussing evidence evaluation on the timescale of greatest relevance based on the situation. Here, we use an auditory change detection task to determine how people adjust their timescale of evidence evaluation depending on task demands for detecting changes in their environment and assessing their internal confidence in those decisions. We confirm previous results that people adopt shorter timescales of evidence evaluation for detecting changes in contexts with shorter signal durations, while bolstering those results with model-free analyses not previously used and extending the results to the auditory domain. We also extend these results to show that in contexts with shorter signal durations, people also adopt correspondingly shorter timescales of evidence evaluation for assessing confidence in their decision about detecting a change. These results provide important insights into adaptability and flexible control of evidence evaluation for decision making.

Citing Articles

Bayesian confidence in optimal decisions.

Calder-Travis J, Charles L, Bogacz R, Yeung N Psychol Rev. 2024; 131(5):1114-1160.

PMID: 39023934 PMC: 7617410. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000472.

Quantifying decision-making in dynamic, continuously evolving environments.

Ruesseler M, Weber L, Marshall T, OReilly J, Hunt L Elife. 2023; 12.

PMID: 37883173 PMC: 10602589. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.82823.

Balancing true and false detection of intermittent sensory targets by adjusting the inputs to the evidence accumulation process.

Geuzebroek A, Craddock H, OConnell R, Kelly S Elife. 2023; 12.

PMID: 37646405 PMC: 10547474. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.83025.

Pupillary dynamics reflect the impact of temporal expectation on detection strategy.

Lawlor J, Zagala A, Jamali S, Boubenec Y iScience. 2023; 26(2):106000.

PMID: 36798438 PMC: 9926307. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106000.

Change point detection with multiple alternatives reveals parallel evaluation of the same stream of evidence along distinct timescales.

Booras A, Stevenson T, McCormack C, Rhoads M, Hanks T Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):13098.

PMID: 34162943 PMC: 8222317. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92470-y.

References

Levi A, Yates J, Huk A, Katz L . Strategic and Dynamic Temporal Weighting for Perceptual Decisions in Humans and Macaques. eNeuro. 2018; 5(5). PMC: 6220584. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0169-18.2018. View

Piet A, El Hady A, Brody C . Rats adopt the optimal timescale for evidence integration in a dynamic environment. Nat Commun. 2018; 9(1):4265. PMC: 6189050. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06561-y. View

Moore D, Edmondson-Jones M, Dawes P, Fortnum H, McCormack A, Pierzycki R . Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40-69 years of age. PLoS One. 2014; 9(9):e107720. PMC: 4168235. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107720. View

Lasley D, COHN T . Detection of a luminance increment: effect of temporal uncertainty. J Opt Soc Am. 1981; 71(7):845-50. DOI: 10.1364/josa.71.000845. View

Glaze C, Kable J, Gold J . Normative evidence accumulation in unpredictable environments. Elife. 2015; 4. PMC: 4584511. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08825. View

Johnson B, Verma R, Sun M, Hanks T . Characterization of decision commitment rule alterations during an auditory change detection task. J Neurophysiol. 2017; 118(5):2526-2536. PMC: 5668458. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00071.2017. View

Ratcliff R, Smith P . A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(2):333-67. PMC: 1440925. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333. View

Bronkhorst A, PLOMP R . Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992; 92(6):3132-9. DOI: 10.1121/1.404209. View

Narayan R, Best V, Ozmeral E, McClaine E, Dent M, Shinn-Cunningham B . Cortical interference effects in the cocktail party problem. Nat Neurosci. 2007; 10(12):1601-7. DOI: 10.1038/nn2009. View

10.

Gold J, Shadlen M . The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007; 30:535-74. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038. View

11.

Angeloni C, Geffen M . Contextual modulation of sound processing in the auditory cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2017; 49:8-15. PMC: 6037899. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2017.10.012. View

12.

Ganupuru P, Goldring A, Harun R, Hanks T . Flexibility of Timescales of Evidence Evaluation for Decision Making. Curr Biol. 2019; 29(12):2091-2097.e4. PMC: 7852380. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.05.037. View

13.

Christison-Lagay K, Bennur S, Cohen Y . Contribution of spiking activity in the primary auditory cortex to detection in noise. J Neurophysiol. 2017; 118(6):3118-3131. PMC: 5814708. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00521.2017. View

14.

Brody C, Hanks T . Neural underpinnings of the evidence accumulator. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2016; 37:149-157. PMC: 5777584. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2016.01.003. View

15.

Neri P, Parker A, Blakemore C . Probing the human stereoscopic system with reverse correlation. Nature. 1999; 401(6754):695-8. DOI: 10.1038/44409. View

16.

Shetake J, Wolf J, Cheung R, Engineer C, Ram S, Kilgard M . Cortical activity patterns predict robust speech discrimination ability in noise. Eur J Neurosci. 2011; 34(11):1823-38. PMC: 3286125. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07887.x. View

17.

Ossmy O, Moran R, Pfeffer T, Tsetsos K, Usher M, Donner T . The timescale of perceptual evidence integration can be adapted to the environment. Curr Biol. 2013; 23(11):981-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.039. View

18.

Bronfman Z, Brezis N, Usher M . Non-monotonic Temporal-Weighting Indicates a Dynamically Modulated Evidence-Integration Mechanism. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016; 12(2):e1004667. PMC: 4750938. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004667. View

19.

Palmer J, Huk A, Shadlen M . The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. J Vis. 2005; 5(5):376-404. DOI: 10.1167/5.5.1. View

20.

Radillo A, Veliz-Cuba A, Josic K, Kilpatrick Z . Evidence Accumulation and Change Rate Inference in Dynamic Environments. Neural Comput. 2017; 29(6):1561-1610. DOI: 10.1162/NECO_a_00957. View