Group Augmentation in Realistic Visual-Search Decisions via a Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface

Groups have increased sensing and cognition capabilities that typically allow them to make better decisions. However, factors such as communication biases and time constraints can lead to less-than-optimal group decisions. In this study, we use a hybrid Brain-Computer Interface (hBCI) to improve the performance of groups undertaking a realistic visual-search task. Our hBCI extracts neural information from EEG signals and combines it with response times to build an estimate of the decision confidence. This is used to weigh individual responses, resulting in improved group decisions. We compare the performance of hBCI-assisted groups with the performance of non-BCI groups using standard majority voting, and non-BCI groups using weighted voting based on reported decision confidence. We also investigate the impact on group performance of a computer-mediated form of communication between members. Results across three experiments suggest that the hBCI provides significant advantages over non-BCI decision methods in all cases. We also found that our form of communication increases individual error rates by almost 50% compared to non-communicating observers, which also results in worse group performance. Communication also makes reported confidence uncorrelated with the decision correctness, thereby nullifying its value in weighing votes. In summary, best decisions are achieved by hBCI-assisted, non-communicating groups.

[1]  G. Littlepage,et al.  Effects of Task Experience and Group Experience on Group Performance, Member Ability, and Recognition of Expertise , 1997 .

[2]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Andrew J. King,et al.  Is the true ‘wisdom of the crowd’ to copy successful individuals? , 2012, Biology Letters.

[4]  Albert B. Kao,et al.  Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  G. Stasser,et al.  Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. , 1992 .

[6]  Bahador Bahrami,et al.  Post-decisional accounts of biases in confidence , 2016, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[7]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: recognition memory and motion discrimination. , 2013, Psychological review.

[8]  Leonard Branson,et al.  WHEN TWO HEADS ARE WORSE THAN ONE: IMPACT OF GROUP STYLE AND INFORMATION TYPE ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION , 2010 .

[9]  Steven C. Dakin,et al.  A texture-processing model of the ‘visual sense of number’ , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  Debraj Ray,et al.  Choice Shifts in Groups: A Decision-Theoretic Basis , 2006 .

[11]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Enhancement of Group Perception via a Collaborative Brain–Computer Interface , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  Alexandre Pouget,et al.  Confidence and certainty: distinct probabilistic quantities for different goals , 2016, Nature Neuroscience.

[13]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  Memory performance by decision-making groups and individuals , 1989 .

[14]  D. Helbing,et al.  How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[16]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  A collaborative Brain-Computer Interface for improving group detection of visual targets in complex natural environments , 2015, 2015 7th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).

[17]  Markus Voelter,et al.  State of the Art , 1997, Pediatric Research.

[18]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Neural decoding of collective wisdom with multi-brain computing , 2012, NeuroImage.

[19]  Emily Balcetis,et al.  Social Psychology of Visual Perception , 2010 .

[20]  J. Baron,et al.  The Power of Social Influence on Estimation Accuracy , 2015 .

[21]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  A Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface for Accelerating Human Decision Making , 2013, HCI.

[22]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[23]  J. Baranski,et al.  The calibration and resolution of confidence in perceptual judgments , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface for Aiding Decision-Making , 2014, PloS one.

[25]  P. Latham,et al.  References and Notes Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S11 References Movie S1 Optimally Interacting Minds R�ports , 2022 .

[26]  Paul W. Paese,et al.  Decisions, actions, and the appropriateness of confidence in knowledge , 1991 .

[27]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art , 1977 .

[28]  M. Shadlen,et al.  Representation of Confidence Associated with a Decision by Neurons in the Parietal Cortex , 2009, Science.

[29]  Jonathan R. Zadra,et al.  Emotion and perception: the role of affective information. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[30]  N. Kerr,et al.  Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. , 1996 .

[31]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group performance and decision making. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[32]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Optimal spatial filtering of single trial EEG during imagined hand movement. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[33]  M. Shadlen,et al.  Choice Certainty Is Informed by Both Evidence and Decision Time , 2014, Neuron.