Dataset Information

Decoupling sensory from decisional choice biases in perceptual decision making.

ABSTRACT: The contribution of sensory and decisional processes to perceptual decision making is still unclear, even in simple perceptual tasks. When decision makers need to select an action from a set of balanced alternatives, any tendency to choose one alternative more often-choice bias-is consistent with a bias in the sensory evidence, but also with a preference to select that alternative independently of the sensory evidence. To decouple sensory from decisional biases, here we asked humans to perform a simple perceptual discrimination task with two symmetric alternatives under two different task instructions. The instructions varied the response mapping between perception and the category of the alternatives. We found that from 32 participants, 30 exhibited sensory biases and 15 decisional biases. The decisional biases were consistent with a criterion change in a simple signal detection theory model. Perceptual decision making, thus, even in simple scenarios, is affected by sensory and decisional choice biases.

SUBMITTER: Linares D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6459673 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decoupling sensory from decisional choice biases in perceptual decision making.

Linares Daniel D Aguilar-Lleyda David D López-Moliner Joan J

eLife 20190327

The contribution of sensory and decisional processes to perceptual decision making is still unclear, even in simple perceptual tasks. When decision makers need to select an action from a set of balanced alternatives, any tendency to choose one alternative more often-choice bias-is consistent with a bias in the sensory evidence, but also with a preference to select that alternative independently of the sensory evidence. To decouple sensory from decisional biases, here we asked humans to perform a ...[more]

PMID: 30916643

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disorder of hair loss with a complex and evolving treatment landscape, making it an ideal setting for shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians. Given the varying efficacy, experience, and risks of treatments for AA, we sought to evaluate patient preferences for SDM and the association of SDM with decisional regret.ObjectiveTo evaluate patient preferences for SDM and the association of SDM with decisional regret.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional online survey using the validated SDMQ9 scale for shared decision-making and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) was distributed using the National Alopecia Areata Foundation (NAAF) with the aim of assessing (1) patient preferences in SDM when making treatment decisions, (2) how patients perceived the last decision to have been made, (3) which components of SDM were incorporated into the last decision, and (4) decisional regret related to their last treatment decision. The survey was distributed from July 12, 2021, to August 2, 2021, and data analysis occurred from October 2021 to March 2022.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included (1) patient preferences in incorporation of SDM, (2) how patients made their most recent treatment decision, (3) which components of SDM were incorporated into their most recent treatment decision measured with the validated SDMQ9, and (4) an assessment of decisional regret in relation to SDM components and the most recent treatment modality used by the patient as measured by the validated DRS.ResultsOf 1387 individuals who initiated the survey, 1074 completed it and were included in the analysis (77.4% completion rate). Overall, 917 respondents were women (85.4%). There were 5 American Indian or Alaska Native respondents (0.5%), 33 were Asian (3.1%), 112 Black or African American (10.4%), 836 White (77.8%), and 36 were multiracial (3.4%) or other (36 [3.4%]). The mean age (SD) was 49.3 (15.4) years. Most respondents preferred making the final treatment decision themselves after considering their physician's opinion (503 [46.8%]). Of those who preferred to make treatment decisions using SDM, most made the last AA treatment decision with their physician (596 [55%]; 95% CI, 53%-58%; P < .001). The components of SDM implemented by the patients' dermatologists most identified were the physician "explained the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options" (472 [44%]), and the physician "asked me which treatment option I prefer" (494 [45.9%]). Incorporation of SDM by physicians was generally associated with decreased decisional regret (all ORs with 95% CIs greater than 1.1; P < .01). The treatments associated with the lowest decisional regret were Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, followed by biologics, and deciding not to treat; whereas, the highest decisional regret was reported with anthralin and minoxidil.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional survey study suggest that patients with AA prefer to make treatment decisions with their dermatologist using SDM. When SDM is used, patients report less decisional regret, indicating that SDM may help improve the patient-reported quality of treatment decisions. Newer, more efficacious therapies such as JAK inhibitors may be related to lower decisional regret. Future studies should seek to devise solutions to implement SDM as the AA treatment landscape continues to evolve.

Project description:According to a prominent view of sensorimotor processing in primates, selection and specification of possible actions are not sequential operations. Rather, a decision for an action emerges from competition between different movement plans, which are specified and selected in parallel. For action choices which are based on ambiguous sensory input, the frontoparietal sensorimotor areas are considered part of the common underlying neural substrate for selection and specification of action. These areas have been shown capable of encoding alternative spatial motor goals in parallel during movement planning, and show signatures of competitive value-based selection among these goals. Since the same network is also involved in learning sensorimotor associations, competitive action selection (decision making) should not only be driven by the sensory evidence and expected reward in favor of either action, but also by the subject's learning history of different sensorimotor associations. Previous computational models of competitive neural decision making used predefined associations between sensory input and corresponding motor output. Such hard-wiring does not allow modeling of how decisions are influenced by sensorimotor learning or by changing reward contingencies. We present a dynamic neural field model which learns arbitrary sensorimotor associations with a reward-driven Hebbian learning algorithm. We show that the model accurately simulates the dynamics of action selection with different reward contingencies, as observed in monkey cortical recordings, and that it correctly predicted the pattern of choice errors in a control experiment. With our adaptive model we demonstrate how network plasticity, which is required for association learning and adaptation to new reward contingencies, can influence choice behavior. The field model provides an integrated and dynamic account for the operations of sensorimotor integration, working memory and action selection required for decision making in ambiguous choice situations.

Dataset Information

Decoupling sensory from decisional choice biases in perceptual decision making.

Publications

Decoupling sensory from decisional choice biases in perceptual decision making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets