Regulation of evidence accumulation by pupil-linked arousal processes

Effective decision-making requires integrating evidence over time. For simple perceptual decisions, previous work suggests that humans and animals can integrate evidence over time, but not optimally. This suboptimality could arise from sources including neuronal noise, weighting evidence unequally over time (that is, the ‘integration kernel’), previous trial effects and an overall bias. Here, using an auditory evidence accumulation task in humans, we report that people exhibit all four suboptimalities, some of which covary across the population. Pupillometry shows that only noise and the integration kernel are related to the change in pupil response. Moreover, these two different suboptimalities were related to different aspects of the pupil signal, with the individual differences in pupil response associated with individual differences in the integration kernel, while trial-by-trial fluctuations in pupil response were associated with trial-by-trial fluctuations in noise. These results suggest that different suboptimalities relate to distinct pupil-linked processes, possibly related to tonic and phasic norepinephrine activity.People integrate information over time to make decisions, but they don’t do so optimally. Keung et al. show how distinct aspects of the pupil signal relate to distinct suboptimalities in perceptual decision-making.

[1]  Mara Mather,et al.  Cognitive control, dynamic salience, and the imperative toward computational accounts of neuromodulatory function , 2015, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  D. McCormick,et al.  Pupil fluctuations track rapid changes in adrenergic and cholinergic activity in cortex , 2016, Nature Communications.

[3]  Bingni W. Brunton,et al.  Rats and Humans Can Optimally Accumulate Evidence for Decision-Making , 2013, Science.

[4]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[5]  Jan Drugowitsch,et al.  Computational Precision of Mental Inference as Critical Source of Human Choice Suboptimality , 2016, Neuron.

[6]  Timothy E. J. Behrens,et al.  Dissociable effects of surprise and model update in parietal and anterior cingulate cortex , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Angela J. Yu,et al.  Uncertainty, Neuromodulation, and Attention , 2005, Neuron.

[8]  Sander Nieuwenhuis,et al.  Pupil Diameter Predicts Changes in the Exploration–Exploitation Trade-off: Evidence for the Adaptive Gain Theory , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  G. Aston-Jones,et al.  Locus coeruleus neurons in monkey are selectively activated by attended cues in a vigilance task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[10]  Samuel W Cheadle,et al.  Adaptive Gain Control during Human Perceptual Choice , 2014, Neuron.

[11]  W. Bialek,et al.  A sensory source for motor variation , 2005, Nature.

[12]  E. Yechiam,et al.  To Take Risk is to Face Loss: A Tonic Pupillometry Study , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[13]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Introduction to Reinforcement Learning , 1998 .

[15]  J. Gold,et al.  Arousal-related adjustments of perceptual biases optimize perception in dynamic environments , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[16]  Anne E. Urai,et al.  Pupil-linked arousal is driven by decision uncertainty and alters serial choice bias , 2017, Nature Communications.

[17]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Optimal Predictions in Everyday Cognition , 2006, Psychological science.

[18]  Il Memming Park,et al.  Functional dissection of signal and noise in MT and LIP during decision-making , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  Timothy D. Hanks,et al.  Causal contribution and dynamical encoding in the striatum during evidence accumulation , 2018, bioRxiv.

[20]  P. Dayan,et al.  Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans , 2006, Nature.

[21]  T. Knapen,et al.  Decision-related pupil dilation reflects upcoming choice and individual bias , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Justin L. Gardner,et al.  Adaptable history biases in human perceptual decisions , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Joachim Vandekerckhove,et al.  Pupil-Linked Arousal Determines Variability in Perceptual Decision Making , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[24]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. , 2005, Annual review of neuroscience.

[25]  J D Cohen,et al.  A network model of catecholamine effects: gain, signal-to-noise ratio, and behavior. , 1990, Science.

[26]  Bingni W. Brunton,et al.  Distinct effects of prefrontal and parietal cortex inactivations on an accumulation of evidence task in the rat , 2015, bioRxiv.

[27]  S. Sara.  The locus coeruleus and noradrenergic modulation of cognition , 2009, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[28]  Thomas V. Wiecki,et al.  Eye tracking and pupillometry are indicators of dissociable latent decision processes. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  Robert C. Wilson,et al.  Rational regulation of learning dynamics by pupil–linked arousal systems , 2012, Nature Neuroscience.

[30]  Peter Dayan,et al.  Noradrenaline modulates decision urgency during sequential information gathering , 2018, bioRxiv.

[31]  Bingni W. Brunton,et al.  Distinct relationships of parietal and prefrontal cortices to evidence accumulation , 2014, Nature.

[32]  J. Gold,et al.  Relationships between Pupil Diameter and Neuronal Activity in the Locus Coeruleus, Colliculi, and Cingulate Cortex , 2016, Neuron.

[33]  W. Newsome,et al.  A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT) , 1988, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[34]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The effects of neural gain on attention and learning , 2013, Nature Neuroscience.

[35]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  A pupillary index of susceptibility to decision biases , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[36]  Matthew T. Kaufman,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience: Sensory noise drives bad decisions , 2013, Nature.

[37]  Christopher Summerfield,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Human Perceptual Choice Under Focused and Divided Attention , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  Philip Holmes,et al.  Optimality and Robustness of a Biophysical Decision-Making Model under Norepinephrine Modulation , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  A. Faisal,et al.  Noise in the nervous system , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[40]  Charles D. Kopec,et al.  Posterior parietal cortex represents sensory history and mediates its effects on behaviour , 2017, Nature.

[41]  D. Barraclough,et al.  Prefrontal cortex and decision making in a mixed-strategy game , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[42]  Niels A. Kloosterman,et al.  Dynamic modulation of decision biases by brainstem arousal systems , 2017, eLife.

[43]  A. Pouget,et al.  Not Noisy, Just Wrong: The Role of Suboptimal Inference in Behavioral Variability , 2012, Neuron.

[44]  Peter R Murphy,et al.  Global gain modulation generates time-dependent urgency during perceptual choice in humans , 2016, Nature Communications.

[45]  Jonathan W. Pillow,et al.  Dissociated functional significance of decision-related activity in the primate dorsal stream , 2016, Nature.

[46]  J. Gold,et al.  Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.