Paradoxical evidence integration in rapid decision processes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ruter J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3280955 | biostudies-literature | 2012
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Paradoxical evidence integration in rapid decision processes.
Rüter Johannes J Marcille Nicolas N Sprekeler Henning H Gerstner Wulfram W Herzog Michael H MH
PLoS computational biology 20120216 2
Decisions about noisy stimuli require evidence integration over time. Traditionally, evidence integration and decision making are described as a one-stage process: a decision is made when evidence for the presence of a stimulus crosses a threshold. Here, we show that one-stage models cannot explain psychophysical experiments on feature fusion, where two visual stimuli are presented in rapid succession. Paradoxically, the second stimulus biases decisions more strongly than the first one, contrary ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Perceptual decisions require the accumulation of sensory information to a response criterion. Most accounts of how the brain performs this process of temporal integration have focused on evolving patterns of spiking activity. We report that subthreshold changes in membrane voltage can represent accumulating evidence before a choice. αβ core Kenyon cells (αβc KCs) in the mushroom bodies of fruit flies integrate odor-evoked synaptic inputs to action potential threshold at timescales matching the speed of olfactory discrimination. The forkhead box P transcription factor (FoxP) sets neuronal integration and behavioral decision times by controlling the abundance of the voltage-gated potassium channel Shal (KV4) in αβc KC dendrites. αβc KCs thus tailor, through a particular constellation of biophysical properties, the generic process of synaptic integration to the demands of sequential sampling.
| S-EPMC5947940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When multiple pieces of information bear on a decision, the best approach is to combine the evidence provided by each one. Evidence integration models formalize the computations underlying this process [1-3], explain human perceptual discrimination behavior [4-9], and correspond to neuronal responses elicited by discrimination tasks [10-14]. These findings suggest that evidence integration is key to understanding the neural basis of decision making [15-18]. But while evidence integration has most often been studied with simple tasks that limit deliberation to relatively brief periods, many natural decisions unfold over much longer durations. Neural network models imply acute limitations on the timescale of evidence integration [19-23], and it is currently unknown whether existing computational insights can generalize beyond rapid judgments. Here, we introduce a new psychophysical task and report model-based analyses of human behavior that demonstrate evidence integration at long timescales. Our task requires probabilistic inference using brief samples of visual evidence that are separated in time by long and unpredictable gaps. We show through several quantitative assays how decision making can approximate a normative integration process that extends over tens of seconds without accruing significant memory leak or noise. These results support the generalization of evidence integration models to a broader class of behaviors while posing new challenges for models of how these computations are implemented in biological networks.
| S-EPMC6279571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Value-based decision-making is presumed to involve a dynamic integration process that supports assessing the potential outcomes of different choice options. Decision frameworks assume the value of a decision rests on both the desirability and risk surrounding an outcome. Previous work has highlighted neural representations of risk in the human brain, and their relation to decision choice. Key neural regions including the insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) have been implicated in encoding the effects of risk on decision outcomes, including approach and avoidance. Yet, it remains unknown whether these regions are involved in the dynamic integration processes that precede and drive choice, and their relationship with ongoing attention. Here, we used concurrent fMRI and eye-tracking to discern neural activation related to visual attention preceding choice between sure-thing (i.e. safe) and risky gamble options. We found activation in both dorsal ACC (dACC) and posterior insula (PI) scaled in opposite directions with the difference in attention to risky rewards relative to risky losses. PI activation also differentiated foveations on both risky options (rewards and losses) relative to a sure-thing option. These findings point to ACC involvement in ongoing evaluation of risky but higher value options. The role of PI in risky outcomes points to a more general evaluative role in the decision-making that compares both safe and risky outcomes, irrespective of potential for gains or losses.
| S-EPMC8159858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multistep decision making pervades daily life, but its underlying mechanisms remain obscure. We distinguish four prominent models of multistep decision making, namely serial stage, hierarchical evidence integration, hierarchical leaky competing accumulation (HLCA), and probabilistic evidence integration (PEI). To empirically disentangle these models, we design a two-step reward-based decision paradigm and implement it in a reaching task experiment. In a first step, participants choose between two potential upcoming choices, each associated with two rewards. In a second step, participants choose between the two rewards selected in the first step. Strikingly, as predicted by the HLCA and PEI models, the first-step decision dynamics were initially biased toward the choice representing the highest sum/mean before being redirected toward the choice representing the maximal reward (i.e., initial dip). Only HLCA and PEI predicted this initial dip, suggesting that first-step decision dynamics depend on additive integration of competing second-step choices. Our data suggest that potential future outcomes are progressively unraveled during multistep decision making.
| S-EPMC5635910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence-based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed-upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs.ObjectiveTo reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs.DesignA two-round modified Delphi survey.Setting and participantsA group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys.Data collectionWe emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback.AnalysisCriteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion.ResultsFollowing two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence).ConclusionA multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs.Patient contributionA patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.
| S-EPMC8369090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.
| S-EPMC3144216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConducting systematic reviews is time-consuming but crucial to construct evidence-based patient decision aids, clinical practice guidelines and decision analyses. New methods might enable developers to produce a knowledge base more rapidly. However, trading off scientific rigour for speed when creating a knowledge base is controversial, and the consequences are insufficiently known. We developed and applied faster methods including systematic reviews and network meta-analyses, assessed their feasibility and compared them to a gold standard approach. We also assessed the feasibility of using decision analysis to perform this comparison.MethodsLong-term treatment in bipolar disorder was our testing field. We developed two new methods: an empirically based, rapid network meta-analysis (NMA) and an expert NMA, and conducted a patient survey. We applied these methods to collect effect estimates for evidence-based treatments on outcomes important to patients. The relative importance of outcomes was obtained from patients using a stated preference method. We used multi-criteria decision analysis to compare a gold standard NMA with the rapid NMA in terms of the ability of the gold standard NMA to change the ranking and expected values of treatments for individual patients.ResultsUsing rapid methods, it was feasible to identify evidence addressing outcomes important to patients. We found that replacing effect estimates from our rapid NMA with estimates from the gold standard NMA resulted in relatively small changes in the ranking and expected value of treatments. The rapid method sufficed to estimate the effects of nine out of ten options. To produce a ranking of treatments accurate for more than 95% of patients, it was necessary to supplement systematic with rapid methods and to use relative importance weights in the analysis. Integrating estimates of the outcome "treatment burden" had a larger impact on rankings than replacing rapid with gold standard methods. Using patients' importance weights only modestly affected results.ConclusionsThe transfer of knowledge to practice could benefit from faster systematic reviewing methods. The results in this preliminary assessment suggest that an improved rapid NMA approach might replace gold standard NMAs. Decision analysis could be used to compare evidence summarisation methods.
| S-EPMC6195718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite recent progress in understanding multisensory decision-making, a conclusive mechanistic account of how the brain translates the relevant evidence into a decision is lacking. Specifically, it remains unclear whether perceptual improvements during rapid multisensory decisions are best explained by sensory (i.e., 'Early') processing benefits or post-sensory (i.e., 'Late') changes in decision dynamics. Here, we employ a well-established visual object categorisation task in which early sensory and post-sensory decision evidence can be dissociated using multivariate pattern analysis of the electroencephalogram (EEG). We capitalize on these distinct neural components to identify when and how complementary auditory information influences the encoding of decision-relevant visual evidence in a multisensory context. We show that it is primarily the post-sensory, rather than the early sensory, EEG component amplitudes that are being amplified during rapid audiovisual decision-making. Using a neurally informed drift diffusion model we demonstrate that a multisensory behavioral improvement in accuracy arises from an enhanced quality of the relevant decision evidence, as captured by the post-sensory EEG component, consistent with the emergence of multisensory evidence in higher-order brain areas.
| S-EPMC7595090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence accumulation models have enabled strong advances in our understanding of decision-making, yet their application to examining learning has not been common. Using data from participants completing a dynamic random dot-motion direction discrimination task across four days, we characterized alterations in two components of perceptual decision-making (Drift Diffusion Model drift rate and response boundary). Continuous-time learning models were applied to characterize trajectories of performance change, with different models allowing for varying dynamics. The best-fitting model included drift rate changing as a continuous, exponential function of cumulative trial number. In contrast, response boundary changed within each daily session, but in an independent manner across daily sessions. Our results highlight two different processes underlying the pattern of behavior observed across the entire learning trajectory, one involving a continuous tuning of perceptual sensitivity, and another more variable process describing participants' threshold of when enough evidence is present to act.
| S-EPMC10250420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective.MethodsThe review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed.ResultsThe review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement.ConclusionsEvidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.
| S-EPMC10903073 | biostudies-literature