A Neural Network Model of the Eriksen Task: Reduction, Analysis, and Data Fitting

We analyze a neural network model of the Eriksen task: a two-alternative forced-choice task in which subjects must correctly identify a central stimulus and disregard flankers that may or may not be compatible with it. We linearize and decouple the model, deriving a reduced drift-diffusion process with variable drift rate that describes the accumulation of net evidence in favor of either alternative, and we use this to analytically describe how accuracy and response time data depend on model parameters. Such analyses both assist parameter tuning in network models and suggest explanations of changing drift rates in terms of attention. We compare our results with numerical simulations of the full nonlinear model and with empirical data and show good fits to both with fewer parameters.

[1]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Dopamine and the mechanisms of cognition: Part II. D-amphetamine effects in human subjects performing a selective attention task , 1998, Biological Psychiatry.

[2]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

[3]  M. Shadlen,et al.  Response of Neurons in the Lateral Intraparietal Area during a Combined Visual Discrimination Reaction Time Task , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  Jeffrey D. Schall,et al.  Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[5]  Joshua W. Brown,et al.  Monitoring and Control of Action by the Frontal Lobes , 2002, Neuron.

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

[7]  W. Newsome,et al.  Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[9]  Cameron S. Carter,et al.  Dopamine and the mechanisms of cognition: Part I. A neural network model predicting dopamine effects on selective attention , 1998, Biological Psychiatry.

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

[11]  Peter Dayan,et al.  A Bayesian View of Sensory Conflicts in Decision-Making March 3 , 2006 1 Introduction , 2006 .

[12]  P. Holmes,et al.  The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives , 2006 .

[13]  Xiang Zhou,et al.  Time-Varying Perturbations Can Distinguish Among Integrate-to-Threshold Models for Perceptual Decision Making in Reaction Time Tasks , 2009, Neural Computation.

[14]  Philip Holmes,et al.  Dynamical Analysis of Bayesian Inference Models for the Eriksen Task , 2009, Neural Computation.

[15]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. , 1999, Psychological review.

[16]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[17]  Philip Holmes,et al.  Simple Neural Networks that Optimize Decisions , 2005, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[18]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.

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

[20]  J. Cohen,et al.  Context, cortex, and dopamine: a connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. , 1992, Psychological review.

[21]  Michael L. Platt,et al.  Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex , 1999, Nature.

[22]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: a psychophysiological analysis. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. , 1984, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[25]  C. Gardiner.  Handbook of Stochastic Methods , 1983 .

[26]  J. Gold,et al.  Banburismus and the Brain Decoding the Relationship between Sensory Stimuli, Decisions, and Reward , 2002, Neuron.

[27]  P. Holmes,et al.  Closed-Form Approximations of First-Passage Distributions for a Stochastic Decision-Making Model. , 2010, Applied mathematics research express : AMRX.

[28]  F. AbbottPhysics.  FIRING-RATE MODELS FOR NEURAL POPULATIONSL , 1991 .

[29]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[30]  Stephen Grossberg,et al.  Nonlinear neural networks: Principles, mechanisms, and architectures , 1988, Neural Networks.

[31]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[32]  John J. Hopfield,et al.  Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities , 1999 .

[33]  J. Cohen,et al.  The role of locus coeruleus in the regulation of cognitive performance. , 1999, Science.