Using psychophysics to ask if the brain samples or maximizes

Daniel E. Acuna; Max Berniker; Hugo L. Fernandes; Konrad P. Kording

doi:10.1167/15.3.7

Using psychophysics to ask if the brain samples or maximizes

Daniel E. Acuna^*, Max Berniker, Hugo L. Fernandes, Konrad P. Kording

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

The two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task is the workhorse of psychophysics and is used to measure the just-noticeable difference, generally assumed to accurately quantify sensory precision. However, this assumption is not true for all mechanisms of decision making. Here we derive the behavioral predictions for two popular mechanisms, sampling and maximum a posteriori, and examine how they affect the outcome of the 2AFC task. These predictions are used in a combined visual 2AFC and estimation experiment. Our results strongly suggest that subjects use a maximum a posteriori mechanism. Further, our derivations and experimental paradigm establish the already standard 2AFC task as a behavioral tool for measuring how humans make decisions under uncertainty.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1-16
Number of pages	16
Journal	Journal of Vision
Volume	15
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1167/15.3.7
State	Published - 2015

Funding

Keywords

Bayesian
Decision-making
Just-noticeable difference (JND)
Maximum a posteriori
Psychophysics
Sampling
Two-alternative forced choice (2AFC)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Sensory Systems
Ophthalmology

Access to Document

10.1167/15.3.7

Cite this

@article{0922850d977a4ca6b2eb444111ac8a11,

title = "Using psychophysics to ask if the brain samples or maximizes",

abstract = "The two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task is the workhorse of psychophysics and is used to measure the just-noticeable difference, generally assumed to accurately quantify sensory precision. However, this assumption is not true for all mechanisms of decision making. Here we derive the behavioral predictions for two popular mechanisms, sampling and maximum a posteriori, and examine how they affect the outcome of the 2AFC task. These predictions are used in a combined visual 2AFC and estimation experiment. Our results strongly suggest that subjects use a maximum a posteriori mechanism. Further, our derivations and experimental paradigm establish the already standard 2AFC task as a behavioral tool for measuring how humans make decisions under uncertainty.",

keywords = "Bayesian, Decision-making, Just-noticeable difference (JND), Maximum a posteriori, Psychophysics, Sampling, Two-alternative forced choice (2AFC)",

author = "Acuna, {Daniel E.} and Max Berniker and Fernandes, {Hugo L.} and Kording, {Konrad P.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015 ARVO.",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.1167/15.3.7",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "15",

pages = "1--16",

journal = "Journal of Vision",

issn = "1534-7362",

publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using psychophysics to ask if the brain samples or maximizes

AU - Acuna, Daniel E.

AU - Berniker, Max

AU - Fernandes, Hugo L.

AU - Kording, Konrad P.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task is the workhorse of psychophysics and is used to measure the just-noticeable difference, generally assumed to accurately quantify sensory precision. However, this assumption is not true for all mechanisms of decision making. Here we derive the behavioral predictions for two popular mechanisms, sampling and maximum a posteriori, and examine how they affect the outcome of the 2AFC task. These predictions are used in a combined visual 2AFC and estimation experiment. Our results strongly suggest that subjects use a maximum a posteriori mechanism. Further, our derivations and experimental paradigm establish the already standard 2AFC task as a behavioral tool for measuring how humans make decisions under uncertainty.

AB - The two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task is the workhorse of psychophysics and is used to measure the just-noticeable difference, generally assumed to accurately quantify sensory precision. However, this assumption is not true for all mechanisms of decision making. Here we derive the behavioral predictions for two popular mechanisms, sampling and maximum a posteriori, and examine how they affect the outcome of the 2AFC task. These predictions are used in a combined visual 2AFC and estimation experiment. Our results strongly suggest that subjects use a maximum a posteriori mechanism. Further, our derivations and experimental paradigm establish the already standard 2AFC task as a behavioral tool for measuring how humans make decisions under uncertainty.

KW - Bayesian

KW - Decision-making

KW - Just-noticeable difference (JND)

KW - Maximum a posteriori

KW - Psychophysics

KW - Sampling

KW - Two-alternative forced choice (2AFC)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925959151&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925959151&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1167/15.3.7

DO - 10.1167/15.3.7

M3 - Article

C2 - 25767093

AN - SCOPUS:84925959151

SN - 1534-7362

VL - 15

SP - 1

EP - 16

JO - Journal of Vision

JF - Journal of Vision

IS - 3

ER -

Using psychophysics to ask if the brain samples or maximizes

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this