Suboptimal criterion setting in a perceptual choice task with asymmetric reinforcement

Performance on psychophysical tasks is influenced by a variety of non-sensory factors, most notably the magnitude or probability of reinforcement following correct responses. When reinforcement probability is unequal for hits and correct rejections, signal detection theory specifies an optimal decision criterion which maximizes the number of reinforcers. We subjected pigeons to a task in which six different stimuli (shades of gray) had to be assigned to one of two categories. Animals were confronted with asymmetric reinforcement schedules in which correct responses to five of the stimuli were reinforced with a probability of 0.5, while correct responses to the remaining stimulus were extinguished. The subjects' resultant choice probabilities clearly deviated from those predicted by a maximization account. More specifically, the magnitude of the choice bias increased with the distance of the to-be-extinguished stimulus to the category boundary, a pattern opposite to that posited by maximization. The present and a previous set of results in which animals performed optimally can be explained by a simple choice mechanism in which a variable decision criterion is constantly updated according to a leaky integration of incomes attained from both response options.

[1]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Optimal reward harvesting in complex perceptual environments , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  O. Güntürkün,et al.  Adaptive criterion setting in perceptual decision making. , 2011, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  Michael A. Skelly,et al.  “Nonparametric”A’ and other modern misconceptions about signal detection theory , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  Carl F Saslow,et al.  Learning models for a continuum of sensory states reexamined , 1975 .

[5]  Daeyeol Lee,et al.  Behavioral and Neural Changes after Gains and Losses of Conditioned Reinforcers , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  M. Treisman,et al.  American Psychological Association, Inc, A Theory of Criterion Setting With an Application to Sequential Dependencies , 2022 .

[7]  M. Davison,et al.  Towards a behavioral theory of bias in signal detection , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Tobias Teichert,et al.  Suboptimal Integration of Reward Magnitude and Prior Reward Likelihood in Categorical Decisions by Monkeys , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[9]  C. Gallistel,et al.  The rat approximates an ideal detector of changes in rates of reward: implications for the law of effect. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[10]  Maik C. Stüttgen,et al.  Stimulus-Response-Outcome Coding in the Pigeon Nidopallium Caudolaterale , 2013, PloS one.

[11]  W Vaughan,et al.  Melioration, matching, and maximization. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[13]  J E Staddon,et al.  Matching, maximizing, and hill-climbing. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[15]  Tobias Otto,et al.  The Biopsychology-Toolbox: A free, open-source Matlab-toolbox for the control of behavioral experiments , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[16]  F. Mallegni,et al.  A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences , 2008, PloS one.

[17]  J. Nevin,et al.  Differential reinforcement and signal detection. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  W. Newsome,et al.  Matching Behavior and the Representation of Value in the Parietal Cortex , 2004, Science.

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

[20]  M. Frank Norman,et al.  Markov Processes and Learning Models , 2012 .

[21]  W M Baum,et al.  Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[22]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Risk assessment in man and mouse , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  A. Pouget,et al.  Reading population codes: a neural implementation of ideal observers , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[24]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Is matching innate? , 2007, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  Anthony J. Movshon,et al.  Optimal representation of sensory information by neural populations , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  C A Boneau,et al.  Decision theory, the pigeon, and the psychophysical function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[28]  G. S. Reynolds Behavioral contrast. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[29]  M C Davison,et al.  The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[30]  Yutaka Sakai,et al.  When Does Reward Maximization Lead to Matching Law? , 2008, PloS one.

[31]  Frank Jäkel,et al.  Mapping Spikes to Sensations , 2011, Front. Neurosci..

[32]  G. Berns,et al.  BAD TO WORSE , 1975, The Lancet.

[33]  Graham H. Pyke,et al.  Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests , 1977, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[34]  C. Gallistel,et al.  The rat approximates an ideal detector of changes in rates of reward: implications for the law of effect. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[35]  H Rachlin,et al.  Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[36]  Donald D. Dorfman,et al.  A learning model for a continuum of sensory states , 1971 .

[37]  K. H. Britten,et al.  Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision , 1989, Nature.

[38]  J. Nevin,et al.  Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. , 1999, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[39]  Philip Holmes,et al.  Can Monkeys Choose Optimally When Faced with Noisy Stimuli and Unequal Rewards? , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[40]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[41]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning , 2004, Nature.

[42]  G. Thines,et al.  Behavioural processes , 1976, Behavioural Processes.

[43]  Maik C. Stüttgen,et al.  Psychophysical and neurometric detection performance under stimulus uncertainty , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[44]  W Todd Maddox,et al.  Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization. , 2002, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[45]  J E Staddon,et al.  Optimization: a result or a mechanism? , 1983, Science.

[46]  M. Landy,et al.  Optimal Compensation for Changes in Task-Relevant Movement Variability , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[47]  P. Bickford,et al.  Long-Term Upregulation of Inflammation and Suppression of Cell Proliferation in the Brain of Adult Rats Exposed to Traumatic Brain Injury Using the Controlled Cortical Impact Model , 2013, PloS one.

[48]  D. Dorfman The likelihood function of additive learning models: Sufficient conditions for strict log-concavity and uniqueness of maximum ☆ , 1973 .

[49]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[50]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Melioration and Behavioral Allocation1 , 1980 .

[51]  Timothy E. J. Behrens,et al.  Perceptual Classification in a Rapidly Changing Environment , 2011, Neuron.

[52]  H. Basford,et al.  Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search , 2005 .

[53]  Matthias Bethge,et al.  Natural Image Coding in V1: How Much Use Is Orientation Selectivity? , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[54]  D. Collett Modelling Binary Data , 1991 .

[55]  M Kac,et al.  Some mathematical models in science. , 1969, Science.

[56]  B. Love,et al.  The myth of computational level theory and the vacuity of rational analysis , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[57]  H. Seung,et al.  JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2005, 84, 581–617 NUMBER 3(NOVEMBER) LINEAR-NONLINEAR-POISSON MODELS OF PRIMATE CHOICE DYNAMICS , 2022 .