Our unconscious brain makes the best decisions possible

December 24, 2008

Researchers at the University of Rochester have shown that the human brain—once thought to be a seriously flawed decision maker—is actually hard-wired to allow us to make the best decisions possible with the information we are given. The findings are published in today's issue of the journal Neuron.

Neuroscientists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky received a 2002 Nobel Prize for their 1979 research that argued humans rarely make rational decisions. Since then, this has become conventional wisdom among cognition researchers

Contrary to Kahnneman and Tversky's research, Alex Pouget, associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester, has shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.

"A lot of the early work in this field was on conscious decision making, but most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget. "You don't consciously decide to stop at a red light or steer around an obstacle in the road. Once we started looking at the decisions our brains make without our knowledge, we found that they almost always reach the right decision, given the information they had to work with."

Pouget says that Kahneman's approach was to tell a subject that there was a certain percent chance that one of two choices in a test was "right." This meant a person had to consciously compute the percentages to get a right answer—something few people could do accurately.

Pouget has been demonstrating for years that certain aspects of human cognition are carried out with surprising accuracy. He has employed what he describes as a very simple unconscious-decision test. A series of dots appears on a computer screen, most of which are moving in random directions. A controlled number of these dots are purposely moving uniformly in the same direction, and the test subject simply has to say whether he believes those dots are moving to the left or right. The longer the subject watches the dots, the more evidence he accumulates and the more sure he becomes of the dots' motion.

Subjects in this test performed exactly as if their brains were subconsciously gathering information before reaching a confidence threshold, which was then reported to the conscious mind as a definite, sure answer. The subjects, however, were never aware of the complex computations going on, instead they simply "realized" suddenly that the dots were moving in one direction or another. The characteristics of the underlying computation fit with Pouget's extensive earlier work that suggested the human brain is wired naturally to perform calculations of this kind.

"We've been developing and strengthening this hypothesis for years—how the brain represents probability distributions," says Pouget. "We knew the results of this kind of test fit perfectly with our ideas, but we had to devise a way to see the neurons in action. We wanted to see if, in fact, humans are really good decision makers after all, just not quite so good at doing it consciously. Kahneman explicitly told his subjects what the chances were, but we let people's unconscious mind work it out. It's weird, but people rarely make optimal decisions when they are told the percentages up front."

Pouget analyzed the data from a test performed in the laboratory of Michael Shadlen, a professor of physiology and biophysics at the University of Washington. Shadlen's team watched the activity of a pair of neurons that normally respond to the sight of things moving to the left or right. For instance, when the test consisted of a few dots moving to the right within the jumble of other random dots, the neuron coding for "rightward movement" would occasionally fire. As the test continued, the neuron would fire more and more frequently until it reached a certain threshold, triggering a flurry of activity in the brain and a response from the subject of "rightward."

Pouget says a probabilistic decision-making system like this has several advantages. The most important is that it allows us to reach a reasonable decision in a reasonable amount of time. If we had to wait until we're 99 percent sure before we make a decision, Pouget says, then we would waste time accumulating data unnecessarily. If we only required a 51 percent certainty, then we might reach a decision before enough data has been collected.

Another main advantage is that when we finally reach a decision, we have a sense of how certain we are of it—say, 60 percent or 90 percent—depending on where the triggering threshold has been set. Pouget is now investigating how the brain sets this threshold for each decision, since it does not appear to have the same threshold for each kind of question it encounters.

Source: University of Rochester

Explore further: Red cosmetic powder used in Hindu ceremonies contains unsafe lead levels

Related Stories

Red cosmetic powder used in Hindu ceremonies contains unsafe lead levels

September 19, 2017
Sindoor—a cosmetic powder sold in the United States and used during Hindu religious and cultural ceremonies—has unsafe levels of lead, according to a Rutgers University study.

How subtle changes in our bodies affect conscious awareness and decision confidence

November 2, 2016
How do we become aware of our own thoughts and feelings? And what enables us to know when we've made a good or bad decision? Every day we are confronted with ambiguous situations. If we want to learn from our mistakes, it ...

Ever-so-slight delay improves decision-making accuracy

March 7, 2014
Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) researchers have found that decision-making accuracy can be improved by postponing the onset of a decision by a mere fraction of a second. The results could further our understanding ...

Scientists identify two brain networks influencing how we make decisions

February 2, 2017
Scientists at the Medical Research Council Brain Network Dynamics Unit at the University of Oxford have pinpointed two distinct mechanisms in the human brain that control the balance between speed and accuracy when making ...

Study offers evidence of unconscious thinking impacting conscious decision making

October 28, 2014
(Medical Xpress)—A trio of researchers with the University of New South Wales, has found evidence to support the notion that unconscious thinking does impact conscious thinking, without the person even knowing it. In their ...

Fast eye movements: A possible indicator of more impulsive decision-making

January 21, 2014
Using a simple study of eye movements, Johns Hopkins scientists report evidence that people who are less patient tend to move their eyes with greater speed. The findings, the researchers say, suggest that the weight people ...

Recommended for you

Lactation hormone also helps a mother's brain

September 26, 2017
The same hormone that stimulates milk production for lactation, also acts in the brain to help establish the nurturing link between mother and baby, University of Otago researchers have revealed for the first time.

Image ordering often based on factors other than patient need: study

September 25, 2017
Do you really need that MRI?

Bone marrow concentrate improves joint transplants

September 25, 2017
Biologic joint restoration using donor tissue instead of traditional metal and plastic may be an option for active patients with joint defects. Although recovery from a biologic joint repair is typically longer than traditional ...

Researchers describe mechanism that underlies age-associated bone loss

September 22, 2017
A major health problem in older people is age-associated osteoporosis—the thinning of bone and the loss of bone density that increases the risk of fractures. Often this is accompanied by an increase in fat cells in the ...

Researchers develop treatment to reduce rate of cleft palate relapse complication

September 22, 2017
Young people with cleft palate may one day face fewer painful surgeries and spend less time undergoing uncomfortable orthodontic treatments thanks to a new therapy developed by researchers from the UCLA School of Dentistry. ...

Exosomes are the missing link to insulin resistance in diabetes

September 21, 2017
Chronic tissue inflammation resulting from obesity is an underlying cause of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. But the mechanism by which this occurs has remained cloaked, until now.

9 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Arikin
not rated yet Dec 24, 2008
Movement determination is high on the priority list for most animals. It allows us to evade or to pounce and eat. Even our eyes are spaced apart so we can determine depth to see movement towards or away from us.

Wonder how other types of decisions could be tested...
Corvidae
not rated yet Dec 25, 2008
Movement towards or away from us is determined by each eye individually using parallax, then combined between the two eyes to improve accuracy.

The computations they're referring to are also the ones that humans/animals can do easily, yet computers are almost completely useless at.
draez
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2008
it's "SUBCONSCIOUS" not "UNCONSCIOUS". This article just lost all credibility.
legendsaber
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2008
it's "SUBCONSCIOUS" not "UNCONSCIOUS". This article just lost all credibility.


It's amusing when people who talk with such arrogant certainty also turn out to be completely wrong.

Do a little research next time: use of the term "subconscious" is avoided within academic psychology. Almost all of them opt to use "unconscious mind/brain" instead.
physpuppy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2008
The computations they're referring to are also the ones that humans/animals can do easily, yet computers are almost completely useless at.


Maybe it's the difference between analog and digital calculations? Analog can be almost instantaneous.
niccy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2008
hi tis niccy this is very cool site.
Corvidae
4 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2008
Maybe it's the difference between analog and digital calculations? Analog can be almost instantaneous.

It's not the on/off speed that makes the difference. It could probably be argued that digital is faster in that respect. The real difference is that the organic system is massively parallel. We can't build a digital system with as many real time parallel processors, so we try to make up for it by having fewer, but faster ones.
vlam67
not rated yet Dec 28, 2008
Now we have a more credible explanation of how martial arts experts, F1 racers and top athletes can anticipate and respond to each new situation with blinding speeds. Certainly not by consciously analyzing, calculating and then responding.
Bendel1226
not rated yet Jan 20, 2009
wow, sounds great. Here's my tips on making decisions: http://benlinus.b...ons.html

Just try to read it and leave a comment if you want.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.