Inclusion of neural effort in cost function can explain perceptual decision suboptimality

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yury P. Shimansky ◽  
Natalia Dounskaia

AbstractA more general form of optimality approach applied to the entire behavioral paradigm should be used instead of abandoning the optimality approach. Adding the cost of information processing to the optimality criterion and taking into account some other recently proposed aspects of decision optimization could substantially increase the explanatory power of an optimality approach to modeling perceptual decision making.

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 3612-3628 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Drugowitsch ◽  
R. Moreno-Bote ◽  
A. K. Churchland ◽  
M. N. Shadlen ◽  
A. Pouget

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dobromir Rahnev ◽  
Rachel N. Denison

Short AbstractHuman perceptual decisions are often described as optimal, but this view remains controversial. To elucidate the issue, we review the vast literature on suboptimalities in perceptual tasks and compile the proposed hypotheses about the origins of suboptimal behavior. Further, we argue that general claims about optimality are virtually meaningless and result in a false sense of progress. Instead, real progress can be achieved by building observer models that account for both optimal and suboptimal behavior. To achieve such progress, the field should focus on assessing the hypotheses about suboptimal behavior compiled here and stop chasing optimality.Long AbstractHuman perceptual decisions are often described as optimal. Critics of this view have argued that claims of optimality are overly flexible and lack explanatory power. Meanwhile, advocates for optimality have countered that such criticisms single out a few selected papers. To elucidate the issue of optimality in perceptual decision making, we review the extensive literature on suboptimal performance in perceptual tasks. We discuss eight different classes of suboptimal perceptual decisions, including improper placement, maintenance, and adjustment of perceptual criteria, inadequate tradeoff between speed and accuracy, inappropriate confidence ratings, misweightings in cue combination, and findings related to various perceptual illusions and biases. In addition, we discuss conceptual shortcomings of a focus on optimality, such as definitional difficulties and the limited value of optimality claims in and of themselves. We therefore advocate that the field drop its emphasis on whether observed behavior is optimal and instead concentrate on building and testing detailed observer models that explain behavior across a wide range of tasks. To facilitate this transition, we compile the proposed hypotheses regarding the origins of suboptimal perceptual decisions reviewed here. We argue that verifying, rejecting, and expanding these explanations for suboptimal behavior – rather than assessing optimality per se – should be among the major goals of the science of perceptual decision making.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan A. Stocker

AbstractOptimal or suboptimal, Rahnev & Denison (R&D) rightly argue that this ill-defined distinction is not useful when comparing models of perceptual decision making. However, what they miss is how valuable the focus on optimality has been in deriving these models in the first place. Rather than prematurely abandon the optimality assumption, we should refine this successful normative hypothesis with additional constraints that capture specific limitations of (sensory) information processing in the brain.


Author(s):  
Dobromir Rahnev ◽  
Rachel N. Denison

AbstractHuman perceptual decisions are often described as optimal. Critics of this view have argued that claims of optimality are overly flexible and lack explanatory power. Meanwhile, advocates for optimality have countered that such criticisms single out a few selected papers. To elucidate the issue of optimality in perceptual decision making, we review the extensive literature on suboptimal performance in perceptual tasks. We discuss eight different classes of suboptimal perceptual decisions, including improper placement, maintenance, and adjustment of perceptual criteria; inadequate tradeoff between speed and accuracy; inappropriate confidence ratings; misweightings in cue combination; and findings related to various perceptual illusions and biases. In addition, we discuss conceptual shortcomings of a focus on optimality, such as definitional difficulties and the limited value of optimality claims in and of themselves. We therefore advocate that the field drop its emphasis on whether observed behavior is optimal and instead concentrate on building and testing detailed observer models that explain behavior across a wide range of tasks. To facilitate this transition, we compile the proposed hypotheses regarding the origins of suboptimal perceptual decisions reviewed here. We argue that verifying, rejecting, and expanding these explanations for suboptimal behavior – rather than assessing optimality per se – should be among the major goals of the science of perceptual decision making.


Author(s):  
Vladimir A. Maksimenko ◽  
Alexander Kuc ◽  
Nikita S. Frolov ◽  
Marina V. Khramova ◽  
Alexander N. Pisarchik ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Genís Prat-Ortega ◽  
Klaus Wimmer ◽  
Alex Roxin ◽  
Jaime de la Rocha

AbstractPerceptual decisions rely on accumulating sensory evidence. This computation has been studied using either drift diffusion models or neurobiological network models exhibiting winner-take-all attractor dynamics. Although both models can account for a large amount of data, it remains unclear whether their dynamics are qualitatively equivalent. Here we show that in the attractor model, but not in the drift diffusion model, an increase in the stimulus fluctuations or the stimulus duration promotes transitions between decision states. The increase in the number of transitions leads to a crossover between weighting mostly early evidence (primacy) to weighting late evidence (recency), a prediction we validate with psychophysical data. Between these two limiting cases, we found a novel flexible categorization regime, in which fluctuations can reverse initially-incorrect categorizations. This reversal asymmetry results in a non-monotonic psychometric curve, a distinctive feature of the attractor model. Our findings point to correcting decision reversals as an important feature of perceptual decision making.


Mindfulness ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sungjin Im ◽  
Maya A. Marder ◽  
Gabriella Imbriano ◽  
Tamara J. Sussman ◽  
Aprajita Mohanty

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document