Sensory adaptation supports flexible evidence accumulation during perceptual decision making

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Effective decision-making in dynamic environments requires the brain to flexibly adjust how sensory evidence is accumulated over time, a process often modeled as an adaptive "leak." McGaughey and Gold propose that this flexibility is not solely a property of downstream integrators but is also supported by stimulus-specific sensory adaptation in the middle temporal area (MT). By recording single-unit activity in rhesus macaques during a motion direction-discrimination task, the authors found that more rapidly changing environments lead to reduced sensory encoding and discriminability in MT, which they argue accounts partially for a "leakier" integration. Furthermore, the study identifies pupil-linked arousal as a parallel, independent mechanism contributing to this adaptive process.

Strengths:

The study addresses an important question in cognitive neuroscience by exploring the neural substrates of perceptual flexibility. A major strength is the novel focus on how sensory adaptation, rather than just downstream integration, contributes to behavioral changes in dynamic environments. By shifting the perspective toward the encoding stage, the authors provide a more comprehensive account of how the brain manages evidence accumulation. This conceptual advance is supported by a rigorous experimental approach that combines human-like psychophysics with large-scale single-unit recordings in the middle temporal area (MT) and pupillometry.

Weaknesses:

(1) Alternative mechanisms for performance differences

The authors assume that the difference in performance between the low-switch (LS) and high-switch (HS) frequency conditions is explained by a change in the "leakiness" of integration. However, several other mechanisms could potentially explain this effect:

(i) Temporal Uncertainty: Integration might start later in the HS condition, leading to lower performance.

(ii) Reduced Efficiency: Integration could be less efficient in the HS condition (i.e., lower signal-to-noise ratio) without a change in the leak parameter itself.

(iii)Evidence Contamination: Motion information from the adapting stimulus in the HS condition may be integrated rather than ignored, which might be the case since the transition from the adapting to the test stimulus is not externally cued.

To distinguish between these alternatives, I suggest two possible analyses. First, a formal model comparison could be performed, though I acknowledge this may be inconclusive in the absence of response-time data. Second, an analysis of motion energy kernels could be revealing; the leak hypothesis makes the specific prediction that for long test stimuli, early samples should contribute more to the choice in the LS condition than in the HS condition, relative to late samples.

(2) Independence of neural and pupil-linked signals


The authors take the lack of session-wise correlation between context-dependent contributions from neural and pupil terms as evidence that these two signals provide independent contributions to the behavioral effect. However, could this lack of correlation simply be a result of high variability or noise in these estimates? The data shown in Figure 7B suggests that measurements are very noisy, which might obscure a potential relationship.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

McGaughey & Gold trained rhesus macaque monkeys to perform a motion-direction discrimination task in which a behaviorally irrelevant adapting stimulus with either fast or slow direction alternations preceded a variable-duration test stimulus, while simultaneously recording single-unit activity in area MT and pupil diameter. They report that adaptation to the more rapidly changing stimulus was associated with reduced behavioral sensitivity, attenuated test-evoked MT responses, and larger pupil-linked arousal signals. The authors interpret these behavioral changes as evidence for a more "leaky" evidence-accumulation process, and argue that this apparent leak is implemented in part through context-dependent sensory adaptation in MT and in part through arousal-related mechanisms. More broadly, they conclude that flexible evidence accumulation in dynamic environments arises from distributed adjustments across sensory encoding and neuromodulatory systems rather than solely from changes within a downstream accumulator. If correct, this interpretation has significant implications not only for our understanding of the neural mechanisms of perceptual decision-making but also for broader theories concerning the functional role of sensory adaptation.

The conclusions of the paper are mostly well supported by the data. Evidence for robust adaptation-induced changes in sensory encoding, behavior, and pupil dynamics is convincing, but further clarification and refinement are needed to establish a clear mechanistic link between these effects and decision-making processes.

Aspects of the behavioral analysis would benefit from a tighter connection between theoretical claims about evidence accumulation and the empirical features of the psychometric functions. For example, the rightward shifts observed across adapting conditions are interpreted as consistent with a reset of accumulation on switch trials, but similar patterns could also arise from failures to detect the test stimulus on a subset of trials, leading responses to default to the final adaptor direction. Likewise, changes in psychometric slope and asymptote are attributed to differences in evidence accumulation without explicit modelling or consideration of alternative explanations. Clarifying how specific features of the psychometric functions map onto distinct components of the decision process will strengthen the link between the theoretical framework and the behavioral data.

A slight concern is the lack of a consistent analytical approach for relating behavioral changes to neural and pupil-linked measures. Different sections of the manuscript rely on different behavioral metrics-such as differences in accuracy within a selected stimulus-duration range (e.g., Figure 5C) or psychometric slope differences (Figure 6C) - without clear justification for these choices. The analytical approach likewise varies between simple correlational analyses (Figure 5C, Figure 6C), pseudo-experimental group comparisons (Figures 5D, E), and the inclusion of neural or pupil terms in the behavioral psychometric regression model (Figure 7B). While each metric and approach may be defensible in isolation, adopting a more consistent framework will help convince readers that the reported effects are robust and not contingent on the selective choice of metric or analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Environments change over time; therefore, optimal decision-making ought to discount older observations of the environment in favor of newer ones in a manner consistent with the amount of temporal instability. Computational models of perceptual decision-making model this temporal discounting with a 'leak' parameter that determines the rate at which older information is discarded. In this study, McGaughey and Gold examine the neurophysiological mechanisms that could underlie adaptation to different degrees of temporal instability. They developed a novel variant of the well-established perceptual decision-making random-dot-motion paradigm, in which the stimulus being evaluated was preceded by an 'adapting' stimulus with either high or low temporal stability. When the test stimulus was preceded by the adapting stimulus with lower temporal stability, NHPs showed reduced psychometric slopes, indicative of increased temporal discounting ('leak'). While the NHPs performed this task, single-unit neural activity was recorded in area MT, along with pupillometric data. The authors use these neural and pupil datasets to investigate two potential sources of adaptive discounting under varying amounts of temporal instability: sensory adaptation (changes in instantaneous evidence encoding), and arousal-related changes in evidence accumulation. MT neurons respond differently to the test stimulus under conditions of high vs low temporal stability of the adapting stimulus - when the adapting stimulus is more stable, MT neurons have larger and more selective responses to the test stimulus. In addition, evoked pupil responses to the test stimulus were modulated by the adapting stimulus. Both the strength of the difference in MT responses across contexts and the difference in pupil diameter across contexts were correlated with context-dependent modulation of the monkeys' behavior over sessions. The paper concludes that both sources appear to independently contribute to adaptive evidence accumulation, likely operating at different processing stages in the brain.

Strengths:

(1) While computational models of perceptual decision-making have been very useful for explaining behavior and neural responses in decision-making areas, we are still in search of some of the neural mechanisms that could implement such models. Studies such as this one, which aim to identify neural correlates of simplified model parameters, are quite crucial.

(2) Analysis is generally careful and well-executed.

(3) Prompts some interesting follow-up questions that could be answered with simultaneous recordings and causal manipulations, as the authors state in the Discussion - e.g., which areas are affected by arousal-related neuromodulation correlated with evoked pupil size and how.

Weaknesses:

(1) The task design may not be optimal. While the amount of time the monkey is exposed to each motion direction during the adapting stimulus is matched, it's hard to know if the reduced MT responses to the test stimulus are truly due to the greater frequency of switches during the HSF adapting stimulus or because the monkeys have been exposed to more repetitions of the stimulus. It's increased sensory adaptation in either case, but it makes it problematic to interpret this as temporal context-dependent adaptation specifically. I think this could potentially be partially addressed by an analysis that is in the paper, but could potentially be emphasized/fleshed out more, specifically the results shown in Figure 4D that seem to show that most of the reduction in neural response for adapting units occurs between the first and second stimuli.

(2) The pupillometric analysis seems to be an indirect way of assessing whether the accumulator itself might be modulated by temporal context, but the link could be made clearer. The authors show that context-dependent behavior is related to pupil size, which is related to arousal/neuromodulation, but it would be helpful to have some idea of what neural mechanisms underlying adaptive decision-making are actually impacted by this neuromodulation. Lacking neural data to address this question (e.g., from a brain region proposed to be involved in the accumulation process), at least more discussion of this would be helpful. Essentially, I'm unsure of how to interpret the pupil results: the argument that temporal context affects instantaneous evidence encoding in MT that then drives the accumulator is very clear, but I am a bit confused about what, mechanistically, I should think about the effect of neuromodulation doing.