Understanding active sampling strategies: Empirical approaches and implications for attention and decision research

In natural behavior we actively gather information using attention and active sensing behaviors (such as shifts of gaze) to sample relevant cues. However, while attention and decision making are naturally coordinated, in the laboratory they have been dissociated. Attention is studied independently of the actions it serves. Conversely, decision theories make the simplifying assumption that the relevant information is given, and do not attempt to describe how the decision maker may learn and implement active sampling policies. In this paper I review recent studies that address questions of attentional learning, cue validity and information seeking in humans and non-human primates. These studies suggest that learning a sampling policy involves large scale interactions between networks of attention and valuation, which implement these policies based on reward maximization, uncertainty reduction and the intrinsic utility of cognitive states. I discuss the importance of using such paradigms for formalizing the role of attention, as well as devising more realistic theories of decision making that capture a broader range of empirical observations.

[1]  Christopher J. Peck,et al.  Reward Modulates Attention Independently of Action Value in Posterior Parietal Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  S. Kakade,et al.  Learning and selective attention , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Exploration, novelty, surprise, and free energy minimization , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[4]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  Where to look next? Eye movements reduce local uncertainty. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[5]  N. P. Bichot,et al.  A visual salience map in the primate frontal eye field. , 2005, Progress in brain research.

[6]  Gereon R. Fink,et al.  Functional mechanisms of probabilistic inference in feature- and space-based attentional systems , 2016, NeuroImage.

[7]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search , 2005, Nature.

[8]  Tommy C. Blanchard,et al.  Orbitofrontal Cortex Uses Distinct Codes for Different Choice Attributes in Decisions Motivated by Curiosity , 2015, Neuron.

[9]  J. Maunsell Neuronal representations of cognitive state: reward or attention? , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  M. Woodford Information-Constrained State-Dependent Pricing , 2008 .

[11]  Pascasie L. Dombert,et al.  Disruption of the Right Temporoparietal Junction Impairs Probabilistic Belief Updating , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  J. Gottlieb Attention, Learning, and the Value of Information , 2012, Neuron.

[13]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Information Gaps: A Theory of Preferences Regarding the Presence and Absence of Information , 2018, Decision.

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Spatial Attention, Precision, and Bayesian Inference: A Study of Saccadic Response Speed , 2013, Cerebral cortex.

[15]  D. Ballard,et al.  Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[16]  Pascasie L. Dombert,et al.  Spatial Attention, Motor Intention, and Bayesian Cue Predictability in the Human Brain , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[17]  R. Krauzlis,et al.  Superior colliculus and visual spatial attention. , 2013, Annual review of neuroscience.

[18]  M. Lopes,et al.  Intrinsically motivated oculomotor exploration guided by uncertainty reduction and conditioned reinforcement in non-human primates , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[20]  Andrew Caplin,et al.  Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition , 2014 .

[21]  B. Anderson The attention habit: how reward learning shapes attentional selection , 2016, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[22]  G. Fink,et al.  The impact of probabilistic feature cueing depends on the level of cue abstraction , 2016, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Attention, intention, and priority in the parietal lobe. , 2010, Annual review of neuroscience.

[24]  Kfir Eliaz,et al.  Experimental Testing of Intrinsic Preferences for NonInstrumental Information , 2007 .

[25]  Laurence T. Maloney,et al.  Human Visual Search Does Not Maximize the Post-Saccadic Probability of Identifying Targets , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Pierre-Yves Oudeyer,et al.  Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Active inference and epistemic value , 2015, Cognitive neuroscience.

[28]  W. Newsome,et al.  Choosing the greater of two goods: neural currencies for valuation and decision making , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[29]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[30]  Jacqueline Gottlieb,et al.  Attention, Reward, and Information Seeking , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  Nicholas C. Foley,et al.  Novelty Enhances Visual Salience Independently of Reward in the Parietal Lobe , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  L. Itti,et al.  Modeling the influence of task on attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[33]  Timothy D. Hanks,et al.  Perceptual Decision Making in Rodents, Monkeys, and Humans , 2017, Neuron.

[34]  A. Shleifer,et al.  Salience and Consumer Choice , 2012, Journal of Political Economy.

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

[36]  Manuel Lopes,et al.  Parietal neurons encode expected gains in instrumental information , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Laurent Itti,et al.  Superior colliculus neurons encode a visual saliency map during free viewing of natural dynamic video , 2017, Nature Communications.

[38]  C. Sims Implications of rational inattention , 2003 .

[39]  Ethan S. Bromberg-Martin,et al.  Midbrain Dopamine Neurons Signal Preference for Advance Information about Upcoming Rewards , 2009, Neuron.

[40]  Jessica P. Stagner,et al.  Do pigeons prefer information in the absence of differential reinforcement? , 2012, Learning & behavior.

[41]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Cholinergic Stimulation Enhances Bayesian Belief Updating in the Deployment of Spatial Attention , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  Gereon R. Fink,et al.  Cue validity modulates the neural correlates of covert endogenous orienting of attention in parietal and frontal cortex , 2006, NeuroImage.

[43]  Mary Hayhoe,et al.  Predicting human visuomotor behaviour in a driving task , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[44]  P. Glimcher,et al.  The Neurobiology of Decision: Consensus and Controversy , 2009, Neuron.

[45]  Luca Polonio,et al.  Strategic sophistication and attention in games: An eye-tracking study , 2015, Games Econ. Behav..

[46]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Cortical Coupling Reflects Bayesian Belief Updating in the Deployment of Spatial Attention , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[47]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Free Energy, Value, and Attractors , 2011, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[48]  Zeb Kurth-Nelson,et al.  The modulation of savouring by prediction error and its effects on choice , 2016, eLife.

[49]  Robert A. Marino,et al.  Free viewing of dynamic stimuli by humans and monkeys. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[50]  D. Ballard,et al.  The role of uncertainty and reward on eye movements in a virtual driving task. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[51]  A. Falk,et al.  Beliefs and Utility: Experimental Evidence on Preferences for Information , 2016, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[52]  Yuan Chang Leong,et al.  Dynamic Interaction between Reinforcement Learning and Attention in Multidimensional Environments , 2017, Neuron.

[53]  Scott Cheng-Hsin Yang,et al.  Active sensing in the categorization of visual patterns , 2016, eLife.