Integration of Direction Cues Is Invariant to the Temporal Gap between Them

Many decisions involve integration of evidence conferred by discrete cues over time. However, the neural mechanism of this integration is poorly understood. Several decision-making models suggest that integration of evidence is implemented by a dynamic system whose state evolves toward a stable point representing the decision outcome. The internal dynamics of such point attractor models render them sensitive to the temporal gaps between cues because their internal forces push the state forward once it is dislodged from the initial stable point. We asked whether human subjects are as sensitive to such temporal gaps. Subjects reported the net direction of stochastic random dot motion, which was presented in one or two brief observation windows (pulses). Pulse strength and interpulse interval varied randomly from trial to trial. We found that subjects' performance was largely invariant to the interpulse intervals up to at least 1 s. The findings question the implementation of the integration process via mechanisms that rely on autonomous changes of network state. The mechanism should be capable of freezing the state of the network at a variety of firing rate levels during temporal gaps between the cues, compatible with a line of stable attractor states.

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

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

[3]  P. Neri Estimation of nonlinear psychophysical kernels. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[4]  Timothy D. Hanks,et al.  Bounded Integration in Parietal Cortex Underlies Decisions Even When Viewing Duration Is Dictated by the Environment , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  J. Maunsell,et al.  Effects of Attention on the Processing of Motion in Macaque Middle Temporal and Medial Superior Temporal Visual Cortical Areas , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  P. Cisek,et al.  Decisions in Changing Conditions: The Urgency-Gating Model , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff , 2012, Neuron.

[8]  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.

[9]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  Probabilistic Decision Making by Slow Reverberation in Cortical Circuits , 2002, Neuron.

[10]  B. Cumming,et al.  Decision-related activity in sensory neurons reflects more than a neuron’s causal effect , 2009, Nature.

[11]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Attentional modulation of visual processing. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

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

[13]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Dual diffusion model for single-cell recording data from the superior colliculus in a brightness-discrimination task. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  A. Ahumada Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[15]  P. Miller,et al.  Stochastic Transitions between Neural States in Taste Processing and Decision-Making , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  P. Holmes,et al.  MODELING A SIMPLE CHOICE TASK: STOCHASTIC DYNAMICS OF MUTUALLY INHIBITORY NEURAL GROUPS , 2001 .

[17]  Wulfram Gerstner,et al.  Paradoxical Evidence Integration in Rapid Decision Processes , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[18]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  Cortico–basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  Ranulfo Romo,et al.  Flexible Control of Mutual Inhibition: A Neural Model of Two-Interval Discrimination , 2005, Science.

[20]  Paul Miller,et al.  Accuracy and response-time distributions for decision-making: linear perfect integrators versus nonlinear attractor-based neural circuits , 2013, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[21]  Alexandre Pouget,et al.  Digitized neural networks: long-term stability from forgetful neurons , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  The accumulator model of two-choice discrimination , 1988 .

[23]  M. Shadlen,et al.  Decision-making with multiple alternatives , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[24]  D. Vickers,et al.  Accumulator and Random-Walk Models of Psychophysical Discrimination: A Counter-Evaluation , 1985, Perception.

[25]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  Neurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making. , 2010, Psychological review.

[26]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  Optimum Character of the Sequential Probability Ratio Test , 1948 .

[27]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  A Recurrent Network Mechanism of Time Integration in Perceptual Decisions , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  Similarity Effect and Optimal Control of Multiple-Choice Decision Making , 2008, Neuron.

[29]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Diffusive Information Accumulation by Minimal Recurrent Neural Models of Decision Making , 2011, Neural Computation.

[30]  H. Seung,et al.  Robust persistent neural activity in a model integrator with multiple hysteretic dendrites per neuron. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[31]  J. Ruppersberg Ion Channels in Excitable Membranes , 1996 .

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

[33]  E H Adelson,et al.  Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[35]  S. Link,et al.  A sequential theory of psychological discrimination , 1975 .

[36]  Of icebergs and spike codes: Titanic theories? , 2002 .

[37]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[38]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  Dynamics of neuronal responses in macaque MT and VIP during motion detection , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  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.

[40]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Changing your mind: a computational mechanism of vacillation , 2009, Nature.

[41]  Jochen Ditterich Computational approaches to visual decision making. , 2006, Novartis Foundation symposium.

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

[43]  Timothy D. Hanks,et al.  Probabilistic Population Codes for Bayesian Decision Making , 2008, Neuron.

[44]  Daniel D. Lee,et al.  Stability of the Memory of Eye Position in a Recurrent Network of Conductance-Based Model Neurons , 2000, Neuron.

[45]  D. Laming Probability summation--a critique. , 2013, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[46]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[47]  Michael N. Shadlen,et al.  The Speed and Accuracy of a Simple Perceptual Decision: A Mathematical Primer. , 2007 .

[48]  Eric Shea-Brown,et al.  Neural integrators for decision making: a favorable tradeoff between robustness and sensitivity , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[49]  A. Koulakov,et al.  Model for a robust neural integrator , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[50]  Larissa Albantakis,et al.  Changes of Mind in an Attractor Network of Decision-Making , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..