A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence

  1. Ronald van den Berg
  2. Kavi Anandalingam
  3. Ariel Zylberberg
  4. Roozbeh Kiani
  5. Michael N Shadlen
  6. Daniel M Wolpert  Is a corresponding author
  1. Cambridge University, United Kingdom
  2. Columbia University, United States
  3. New York University, United States

Abstract

Decisions are accompanied by a degree of confidence that a selected option is correct. A sequential sampling framework explains the speed and accuracy of decisions and extends naturally to the confidence that the decision rendered is likely to be correct. However, discrepancies between confidence and accuracy suggest that confidence might be supported by mechanisms dissociated from the decision process. Here we show that this discrepancy can arise naturally because of simple processing delays. When participants were asked to report choice and confidence simultaneously, their confidence, reaction time and a perceptual decision about motion were explained by bounded evidence accumulation. However, we also observed revisions of the initial choice and/or confidence. These changes of mind were explained by a continuation of the mechanism that led to the initial choice. Our findings extend the sequential sampling framework to vacillation about confidence and invites caution in interpreting dissociations between confidence and accuracy.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ronald van den Berg

    Computational and Biological Learning Laboratory, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kavi Anandalingam

    Computational and Biological Learning Laboratory, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ariel Zylberberg

    Kavli Institute, Department of Neuroscience, Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Roozbeh Kiani

    Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Michael N Shadlen

    Kavli Institute, Department of Neuroscience, Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Daniel M Wolpert

    Computational and Biological Learning Lab, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    wolpert@eng.cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Timothy EJ Behrens, University College London, United Kingdom

Ethics

Human subjects: The Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee approved the experimental protocol, and subjects gave written informed consent.

Version history

  1. Received: October 9, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 31, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 1, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 7, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, van den Berg 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

  • 5,919
    views
  • 1,417
    downloads
  • 166
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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. Ronald van den Berg
  2. Kavi Anandalingam
  3. Ariel Zylberberg
  4. Roozbeh Kiani
  5. Michael N Shadlen
  6. Daniel M Wolpert
(2016)
A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence
eLife 5:e12192.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12192

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12192

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Toshiharu Ichinose, Shu Kondo ... Hiromu Tanimoto
    Research Article

    Multicellular organisms are composed of specialized cell types with distinct proteomes. While recent advances in single-cell transcriptome analyses have revealed differential expression of mRNAs, cellular diversity in translational profiles remains underinvestigated. By performing RNA-seq and Ribo-seq in genetically defined cells in the Drosophila brain, we here revealed substantial post-transcriptional regulations that augment the cell-type distinctions at the level of protein expression. Specifically, we found that translational efficiency of proteins fundamental to neuronal functions, such as ion channels and neurotransmitter receptors, was maintained low in glia, leading to their preferential translation in neurons. Notably, distribution of ribosome footprints on these mRNAs exhibited a remarkable bias toward the 5′ leaders in glia. Using transgenic reporter strains, we provide evidence that the small upstream open-reading frames in the 5’ leader confer selective translational suppression in glia. Overall, these findings underscore the profound impact of translational regulation in shaping the proteomics for cell-type distinction and provide new insights into the molecular mechanisms driving cell-type diversity.

    1. Neuroscience
    Hyeri Hwang, Seung-Woo Jin, Inah Lee
    Research Article

    Goal-directed navigation requires the hippocampus to process spatial information in a value-dependent manner, but its underlying mechanism needs to be better understood. Here, we investigated whether the dorsal (dHP) and intermediate (iHP) regions of the hippocampus differentially function in processing place and its associated value information. Rats were trained in a place-preference task involving reward zones with different values in a visually rich virtual reality environment where two-dimensional navigation was possible. Rats learned to use distal visual scenes effectively to navigate to the reward zone associated with a higher reward. Inactivation of both dHP and iHP with muscimol altered the efficiency and precision of wayfinding behavior, but iHP inactivation induced more severe damage, including impaired place preference. Our findings suggest that the iHP is more critical for value-dependent navigation toward higher-value goal locations.