6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Suboptimal Criterion Learning in Static and Dynamic Environments

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Humans often make decisions based on uncertain sensory information. Signal detection theory (SDT) describes detection and discrimination decisions as a comparison of stimulus “strength” to a fixed decision criterion. However, recent research suggests that current responses depend on the recent history of stimuli and previous responses, suggesting that the decision criterion is updated trial-by-trial. The mechanisms underpinning criterion setting remain unknown. Here, we examine how observers learn to set a decision criterion in an orientation-discrimination task under both static and dynamic conditions. To investigate mechanisms underlying trial-by-trial criterion placement, we introduce a novel task in which participants explicitly set the criterion, and compare it to a more traditional discrimination task, allowing us to model this explicit indication of criterion dynamics. In each task, stimuli were ellipses with principal orientations drawn from two categories: Gaussian distributions with different means and equal variance. In the covert-criterion task, observers categorized a displayed ellipse. In the overt-criterion task, observers adjusted the orientation of a line that served as the discrimination criterion for a subsequently presented ellipse. We compared performance to the ideal Bayesian learner and several suboptimal models that varied in both computational and memory demands. Under static and dynamic conditions, we found that, in both tasks, observers used suboptimal learning rules. In most conditions, a model in which the recent history of past samples determines a belief about category means fit the data best for most observers and on average. Our results reveal dynamic adjustment of discrimination criterion, even after prolonged training, and indicate how decision criteria are updated over time.

          Author Summary

          Understanding how humans make decisions based on uncertain sensory information is crucial to understanding how humans interpret and act on the world. Signal detection theory models discrimination and detection decisions as a comparison of “stimulus strength” to a fixed criterion. In a world that is constantly changing a static criterion makes little sense. We investigate this as a problem of learning: How is the decision criterion set when various aspects of the context are unknown (e.g., category means and variances)? We examine criterion learning in both static and dynamic environments. In addition to a more traditional discrimination task in which the criterion is a theoretical construct and unobservable, we use a novel task in which participants must explicitly set the criterion before being shown the stimulus. We show that independent of environment and task, observers dynamically update the decision criterion, even after prolonged training in a static environment. Our results provide evidence against an assumption of stability and have implications for how psychophysical data are analyzed and interpreted and how humans make discrimination decisions under uncertainty.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice.

          When people have access to information sources such as newspaper weather forecasts, drug-package inserts, and mutual-fund brochures, all of which provide convenient descriptions of risky prospects, they can make decisions from description. When people must decide whether to back up their computer's hard drive, cross a busy street, or go out on a date, however, they typically do not have any summary description of the possible outcomes or their likelihoods. For such decisions, people can call only on their own encounters with such prospects, making decisions from experience. Decisions from experience and decisions from description can lead to dramatically different choice behavior. In the case of decisions from description, people make choices as if they overweight the probability of rare events, as described by prospect theory. We found that in the case of decisions from experience, in contrast, people make choices as if they underweight the probability of rare events, and we explored the impact of two possible causes of this underweighting--reliance on relatively small samples of information and overweighting of recently sampled information. We conclude with a call for two different theories of risky choice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Not noisy, just wrong: the role of suboptimal inference in behavioral variability.

            Behavior varies from trial to trial even when the stimulus is maintained as constant as possible. In many models, this variability is attributed to noise in the brain. Here, we propose that there is another major source of variability: suboptimal inference. Importantly, we argue that in most tasks of interest, and particularly complex ones, suboptimal inference is likely to be the dominant component of behavioral variability. This perspective explains a variety of intriguing observations, including why variability appears to be larger on the sensory than on the motor side, and why our sensors are sometimes surprisingly unreliable. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Decision making, movement planning and statistical decision theory.

              We discuss behavioral studies directed at understanding how probability information is represented in motor and economic tasks. By formulating the behavioral tasks in the language of statistical decision theory, we can compare performance in equivalent tasks in different domains. Subjects in traditional economic decision-making tasks often misrepresent the probability of rare events and typically fail to maximize expected gain. By contrast, subjects in mathematically equivalent movement tasks often choose movement strategies that come close to maximizing expected gain. We discuss the implications of these different outcomes, noting the evident differences between the source of uncertainty and how information about uncertainty is acquired in motor and economic tasks.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Comput Biol
                PLoS Comput. Biol
                plos
                ploscomp
                PLoS Computational Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1553-734X
                1553-7358
                3 January 2017
                January 2017
                : 13
                : 1
                : e1005304
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America
                [2 ]Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America
                [4 ]Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America
                [5 ]Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America
                University of Birmingham, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                • Conceptualization: EHN SMF NDD MSL.

                • Data curation: EHN.

                • Formal analysis: EHN SMF NDD MSL.

                • Funding acquisition: MSL.

                • Investigation: EHN.

                • Methodology: EHN SMF NDD MSL.

                • Project administration: MSL.

                • Resources: EHN SMF NDD MSL.

                • Software: EHN SMF.

                • Supervision: MSL NDD.

                • Validation: EHN SMF NDD MSL.

                • Visualization: EHN.

                • Writing – original draft: EHN.

                • Writing – review & editing: EHN SMF NDD MSL.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7645-7141
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2079-4552
                Article
                PCOMPBIOL-D-16-00453
                10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005304
                5242548
                28046006
                7de39517-1dca-4386-93dc-2aea2f5247c8
                © 2017 Norton et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 21 March 2016
                : 13 December 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 10, Tables: 10, Pages: 28
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000053, National Eye Institute;
                Award ID: EY08266
                Award Recipient :
                This work was supported by NIH grant EY08266. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Geometry
                Ellipses
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Memory
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Memory
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychophysics
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychophysics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Psychophysics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Psychophysics
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Psychophysics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Mathematical Models
                Random Walk
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Confidence Intervals
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Probability Theory
                Statistical Distributions
                Distribution Curves
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Custom metadata
                vor-update-to-uncorrected-proof
                2017-01-18
                Data are available on Open Science Framework and can be found using the following identifiers: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FH5U5 and ARK c7605/osf.io/fh5u5.

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article