Optimal multisensory decision-making in a reaction-time task

  1. Jan Drugowitsch  Is a corresponding author
  2. Gregory C DeAngelis
  3. Eliana M Klier
  4. Dora E Angelaki
  5. Alexandre Pouget
  1. University of Rochester, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Humans and animals can integrate sensory evidence from various sources to make decisions in a statistically near-optimal manner, provided that the stimulus presentation time is fixed across trials. Little is known about whether optimality is preserved when subjects can choose when to make a decision (reaction-time task), nor when sensory inputs have time-varying reliability. Using a reaction-time version of a visual/vestibular heading discrimination task, we show that behavior is clearly sub-optimal when quantified with traditional optimality metrics that ignore reaction times. We created a computational model that accumulates evidence optimally across both cues and time, and trades off accuracy with decision speed. This model quantitatively explains subjects' choices and reaction times, supporting the hypothesis that subjects do, in fact, accumulate evidence optimally over time and across sensory modalities, even when the reaction time is under the subject's control.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jan Drugowitsch

    University of Rochester, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    jdrugo@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Gregory C DeAngelis

    University of Rochester, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Eliana M Klier

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Dora E Angelaki

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    Dora E Angelaki, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  5. Alexandre Pouget

    University of Rochester, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent was obtained from all participants and all procedures were reviewed and approved by the Washington University Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), Institutional Review Board (IRB; IRB ID# 201109183). Consent to publish was not obtained in writing, as it was not required by the IRB, but all subjects were recruited for this purpose and approved verbally. Of the initial seven subjects, three participated in a follow-up experiment roughly two years after the initial data collection. Procedures for the follow-up experiment were approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Subject Research for Baylor College of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals (BCM IRB, ID# H-29411) and informed consent and consent to publish was given again by all three subjects.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Eve Marder, Brandeis University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: April 4, 2014
  2. Accepted: June 12, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 14, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 22, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Drugowitsch et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,040
    Page views
  • 759
    Downloads
  • 56
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Jan Drugowitsch
  2. Gregory C DeAngelis
  3. Eliana M Klier
  4. Dora E Angelaki
  5. Alexandre Pouget
(2014)
Optimal multisensory decision-making in a reaction-time task
eLife 3:e03005.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03005

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kevin J Miller et al.
    Research Article

    Humans and animals make predictions about the rewards they expect to receive in different situations. In formal models of behavior, these predictions are known as value representations, and they play two very different roles. Firstly, they drive choice: the expected values of available options are compared to one another, and the best option is selected. Secondly, they support learning: expected values are compared to rewards actually received, and future expectations are updated accordingly. Whether these different functions are mediated by different neural representations remains an open question. Here we employ a recently-developed multi-step task for rats that computationally separates learning from choosing. We investigate the role of value representations in the rodent orbitofrontal cortex, a key structure for value-based cognition. Electrophysiological recordings and optogenetic perturbations indicate that these representations do not directly drive choice. Instead, they signal expected reward information to a learning process elsewhere in the brain that updates choice mechanisms.

    1. Neuroscience
    Bin Wan et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The human cerebral cortex is symmetrically organized along large-scale axes but also presents inter-hemispheric differences in structure and function. The quantified contralateral homologous difference, that is asymmetry, is a key feature of the human brain left-right axis supporting functional processes, such as language. Here, we assessed whether the asymmetry of cortical functional organization is heritable and phylogenetically conserved between humans and macaques. Our findings indicate asymmetric organization along an axis describing a functional trajectory from perceptual/action to abstract cognition. Whereas language network showed leftward asymmetric organization, frontoparietal network showed rightward asymmetric organization in humans. These asymmetries were heritable in humans and showed a similar spatial distribution with macaques, in the case of intra-hemispheric asymmetry of functional hierarchy. This suggests (phylo)genetic conservation. However, both language and frontoparietal networks showed a qualitatively larger asymmetry in humans relative to macaques. Overall, our findings suggest a genetic basis for asymmetry in intrinsic functional organization, linked to higher order cognitive functions uniquely developed in humans.