Temporal stability of Bayesian belief updating in perceptual decision-making
-
Published:2023-12-21
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1554-3528
-
Container-title:Behavior Research Methods
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Behav Res
Author:
Goodwin IsabellaORCID, Hester Robert, Garrido Marta I.
Abstract
AbstractBayesian inference suggests that perception is inferred from a weighted integration of prior contextual beliefs with current sensory evidence (likelihood) about the world around us. The perceived precision or uncertainty associated with prior and likelihood information is used to guide perceptual decision-making, such that more weight is placed on the source of information with greater precision. This provides a framework for understanding a spectrum of clinical transdiagnostic symptoms associated with aberrant perception, as well as individual differences in the general population. While behavioral paradigms are commonly used to characterize individual differences in perception as a stable characteristic, measurement reliability in these behavioral tasks is rarely assessed. To remedy this gap, we empirically evaluate the reliability of a perceptual decision-making task that quantifies individual differences in Bayesian belief updating in terms of the relative precision weighting afforded to prior and likelihood information (i.e., sensory weight). We analyzed data from participants (n = 37) who performed this task twice. We found that the precision afforded to prior and likelihood information showed high internal consistency and good test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.73, 95% CI [0.53, 0.85]) when averaged across participants, as well as at the individual level using hierarchical modeling. Our results provide support for the assumption that Bayesian belief updating operates as a stable characteristic in perceptual decision-making. We discuss the utility and applicability of reliable perceptual decision-making paradigms as a measure of individual differences in the general population, as well as a diagnostic tool in psychiatric research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference45 articles.
1. Adams, R., Stephan, K., Brown, H., Frith, C., & Friston, K. (2013). The computational anatomy of psychosis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4 https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00047 2. Andermane, N., Bosten, J. M., Seth, A. K., & Ward, J. (2020). Individual differences in the tendency to see the expected. Consciousness and Cognition, 85, 102989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.102989 3. Bedder, R. L., Vaghi, M. M., Dolan, R. J., & Rutledge, R. B. (2023). Risk taking for potential losses but not gains increases with time of day. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31738-x 4. Brown, V. M., Chen, J., Gillan, C. M., & Price, R. B. (2020). Improving the reliability of computational analyses: Model-based planning and its relationship with compulsivity. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 5(6), 601–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.12.019 5. Deserno, L., Boehme, R., Mathys, C., Katthagen, T., Kaminski, J., Stephan, K. E., Heinz, A., & Schlagenhauf, F. (2020). Volatility estimates increase choice switching and relate to prefrontal activity in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 5(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.10.007
|
|