Optimal evidence accumulation in decision-making

by John Hewitt report
Rat Choice Experiment
Credit: ratbehavior.org

(Medical Xpress)—At the same settings and light conditions, a camera will take the same picture every time. In contrast, a brain does not make perfect reconstructions of a stimulus. It appears instead to accumulate evidence over time, which it then fits to an evolving internal model. A group of Princeton researchers has sought to explain some aspects of how rats and humans might accumulate evidence in an experimental decision-making task. Publishing recently in Science, they present a method which they claim can reveal internal properties of the decision processes in the absence of any details about how that accumulator works. They further conclude that the accumulator, the memory of the rat or human subject, operates with zero noise.

In noise has a precise definition. For digital systems, Claude Shannon's noisy-channel coding theorem, shows that error-free communication is possible up to a computable maximum rate. Similarly, for analog systems, the noise in a known is found simply by subtracting the received signal from the original signal—assuming you know what that original signal is.

In a brain, the concept of noise is not as clear cut. Computational regularly create models of sensory processing in which they assign noise levels to the spike trains produced in response to a stimulus. Another Princeton researcher, William Bialek, perhaps the foremost researcher in the field, summarized these techniques in his groundbreaking work, Spikes, Exploring the Neural Code.

In this new research are developed to set criteria on how accumulator networks might arrive at a decision in the presence of noise in a sensory stimulus. The task used is to present random clicks trains simultaneously to the left side and the right side of the subject. The clicks are distributed according to Poisson statistics, with a maximum rate of around 40 hz in order that they can be be perceived discretely, rather than as a low frequency tone. The subject then must determine which side had more clicks in each stimulus train. In each trial, the total number of clicks is preserved, only their distribution in each trial changes. As expected, performance improved as the difference between the number of clicks presented to each side was increased, and also as the number of trials was increased.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The idea underlying these experiments, is that by tracking performance improvement at each trial, along with the microstructure of the click train, the researchers can eliminate different models of how the accumulator network actually does its job. The dense details of the actual models used were presented previously in thesis form by the lead author on the paper. The champion model was dubbed, the Click Accumulator model, and reportedly demonstrates the zero noise decision-making effect. Other models presented in the paper, the burst detector and the precedence detector, looked at local features of the stimulus train, and whether one side tended to precede the other.

To fully absorb and vet these methods would probably take even a fairly skilled reader about as much time as it took the author to write them in the thesis. That makes it tough to take on faith the idea of being able to make conclusive statements regarding what a black-boxed brain must be doing, without even looking at its activity. It is nice to know that we can perform some tasks optimally and with no internal noise despite ample noise in the stimulus, but the question of how, still remains.

A similar situation arises in even more complicated tasks, like for example, how do some savants near-instantaneously determine the primacy of numbers? One might eliminate all known methods of determining prime numbers, but it is hard to eliminate the possibility that the savant is not using some other as-yet unknown method. In this case it is also hard to fully eliminate the trivial scenario in which the savant just memorized the properties of all the primes under consideration.

In the original thesis, efforts were begun to look at the underlying mechanisms behind this evidence accumulation process. Collaboration with cutting-edge labs, like that of Karl Deisseroth, to use optogenetic probes in individual neurons have gotten underway. The idea of postulating mechanisms that the neuron networks might in fact be using, is still a very powerful technique. For example, in trying to read a road sign or a face in crowd, does our visual system fill in details slowly like a puzzle over time, or might it instead prefer to wipe the slate clean so to speak, every second and start to gather information anew? Combining these theoretical models with actual neuron data will help bring greater understanding to this area of psychology.

More information: Rats and Humans Can Optimally Accumulate Evidence for Decision-Making, Science 5 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6128 pp. 95-98 DOI: 10.1126/science.1233912

ABSTRACT
The gradual and noisy accumulation of evidence is a fundamental component of decision-making, with noise playing a key role as the source of variability and errors. However, the origins of this noise have never been determined. We developed decision-making tasks in which sensory evidence is delivered in randomly timed pulses, and analyzed the resulting data with models that use the richly detailed information of each trial's pulse timing to distinguish between different decision-making mechanisms. This analysis allowed measurement of the magnitude of noise in the accumulator's memory, separately from noise associated with incoming sensory evidence. In our tasks, the accumulator's memory was noiseless, for both rats and humans. In contrast, the addition of new sensory evidence was the primary source of variability. We suggest our task and modeling approach as a powerful method for revealing internal properties of decision-making processes.

Related Stories

Noise down, neuron signals up

Aug 15, 2012

Biomedical engineer Muhammet Uzuntarla from Bulent Ecevit University, Turkey, and his colleagues present a biologically accurate model of the underlying noise which is present in the nervous system. The article is about to ...

Recommended for you

Know the brain, and its axons, by the clothes they wear

Apr 18, 2014

(Medical Xpress)—It is widely know that the grey matter of the brain is grey because it is dense with cell bodies and capillaries. The white matter is almost entirely composed of lipid-based myelin, but ...

Turning off depression in the brain

Apr 17, 2014

Scientists have traced vulnerability to depression-like behaviors in mice to out-of-balance electrical activity inside neurons of the brain's reward circuit and experimentally reversed it – but there's ...

Rapid whole-brain imaging with single cell resolution

Apr 17, 2014

A major challenge of systems biology is understanding how phenomena at the cellular scale correlate with activity at the organism level. A concerted effort has been made especially in the brain, as scientists are aiming to ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ODesign
not rated yet Apr 08, 2013
a simple explanation for rat behavior based on dopamine reward conditioning theory.

The rat is basically looking for the reward at the end of the maze. Everything it experiences such as clicks noises in this experiment get stored as a possible trigger or cue that can encourage behavior followed by reward. but the experience memory fades over time, and sometimes quickly. If the rat gets the reward then the rat brain increases the future attention to the triggers that preceded the reward and the actions that led to getting the reward. so the rat remembers longest and most vividly those triggers, cues and environmental sensations that are most strongly linked to getting the reward.
Funney
not rated yet Apr 09, 2013
We are dependent on our BRAIN REWARD SYSTEM!
It can be easily triggered, by internal thought or external stimulus.
we are pleasure related animals
where survival sits at the opposite side, always ready to turn things around, if not sufficient relating information at hand
arq
not rated yet Apr 09, 2013
I thought memory only stores information. Looks like it also does the accumulating AND stores that information.

As for noise, i've noticed that inadequate sleep increases noise. And its already known that sleep protects memory.

So connecting these dots it looks like......People who sleep better make decisions better!
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Apr 15, 2013
I thought memory only stores information. Looks like it also does the accumulating AND stores that information...

That's like saying that salt is salt, no matter what its type. Its not so simple. There are main 3 different types of memory and they all work differently (and we use them for different types of things):
Sensory
Short term
Long term - this subdivides further into:
Declarative & Procedural
Episodic
Retrospective
For a more explanatory account:
http://www.human-...pes.html
http://en.wikiped...i/Memory
Cheers, DH66
beleg
not rated yet Apr 15, 2013
"... hair bundle can respond to mechanical stimuli whose energy is an order of magnitude below the energy level of the background thermal motion."

http://phys.org/n...old.html

The authors here are opting for "zero noise" because you can't 'store' noise - 'you' meaning your brain.

In this case "background thermal motion" is 'noise' at least for hearing, and all that is associated with hearing:
The 3 different types of memory (mentioned above.)

Authors in the link offer 'phase slip' as an explanation.
The correct answer is phase shift.

Vision is harder to explain. Vision lacks phase detection and sensitivity.
You come into the world with hearing already - the "accumulating evidence over time" is nonsense.

"...they present a method which they claim can reveal internal properties of the decision processes in the absence of any details about how that accumulator works."
Yes. You make no 'decision' about the sound you hear.

beleg
not rated yet Apr 15, 2013
In a brain, the concept of noise is as clear cut as for analog systems, the noise in a known transmission channel is found simply by subtracting the received signal from the original signal—assuming you know what that original signal is.

So what is the original signal of a cell?
"Zero noise" is the correct assumption. The researchers are bothered by thermal motion and feel obligated to assign 'noise' to spike trains anyway.