» Articles » PMID: 33318661

Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Prior-informed Perceptual Decision-making in Humans

Overview
Journal Nat Hum Behav
Date 2020 Dec 15
PMID 33318661
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To interact successfully with diverse sensory environments, we must adapt our decision processes to account for time constraints and prior probabilities. The full set of decision-process parameters that undergo such flexible adaptation has proven to be difficult to establish using simplified models that are based on behaviour alone. Here, we utilize well-characterized human neurophysiological signatures of decision formation to construct and constrain a build-to-threshold decision model with multiple build-up (evidence accumulation and urgency) and delay components (pre- and post-decisional). The model indicates that all of these components were adapted in distinct ways and, in several instances, fundamentally differ from the conclusions of conventional diffusion modelling. The neurally informed model outcomes were corroborated by independent neural decision signal observations that were not used in the model's construction. These findings highlight the breadth of decision-process parameters that are amenable to strategic adjustment and the value in leveraging neurophysiological measurements to quantify these adjustments.

Citing Articles

Basal ganglia components have distinct computational roles in decision-making dynamics under conflict and uncertainty.

Ging-Jehli N, Cavanagh J, Ahn M, Segar D, Asaad W, Frank M PLoS Biol. 2025; 23(1):e3002978.

PMID: 39847590 PMC: 11756759. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002978.


The Effect of Congruent versus Incongruent Distractor Positioning on Electrophysiological Signals during Perceptual Decision-Making.

Wongtrakun J, Zhou S, Bellgrove M, Chong T, Coxon J J Neurosci. 2024; 44(45).

PMID: 39299801 PMC: 11551889. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2079-23.2024.


Common neural choice signals can emerge artefactually amid multiple distinct value signals.

Fromer R, Nassar M, Ehinger B, Shenhav A Nat Hum Behav. 2024; 8(11):2194-2208.

PMID: 39242928 PMC: 11576515. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01971-z.


Decomposing loss aversion from a single neural signal.

Wang R, Wang X, Platt M, Sheng F iScience. 2024; 27(7):110153.

PMID: 39006480 PMC: 11245989. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110153.


Improving Efficiency: Automatic Intelligent Weighing System as a Replacement for Manual Pig Weighing.

Hou G, Li R, Tian M, Ding J, Zhang X, Yang B Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(11).

PMID: 38891661 PMC: 11171250. DOI: 10.3390/ani14111614.


References
1.
Smith P, Ratcliff R . Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends Neurosci. 2004; 27(3):161-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006. View

2.
Ratcliff R, McKoon G . The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 2007; 20(4):873-922. PMC: 2474742. DOI: 10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420. View

3.
Heitz R . The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Front Neurosci. 2014; 8:150. PMC: 4052662. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00150. View

4.
Mulder M, Wagenmakers E, Ratcliff R, Boekel W, Forstmann B . Bias in the brain: a diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(7):2335-43. PMC: 6621823. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4156-11.2012. View

5.
Rae B, Heathcote A, Donkin C, Averell L, Brown S . The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014; 40(5):1226-43. DOI: 10.1037/a0036801. View