The autocorrelated Bayesian sampler: A rational process for probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choices, confidence judgments, and response times.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Psychological review Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-08 DOI:10.1037/rev0000427
Jian-Qiao Zhu, Joakim Sundh, Jake Spicer, Nick Chater, Adam N Sanborn
{"title":"The autocorrelated Bayesian sampler: A rational process for probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choices, confidence judgments, and response times.","authors":"Jian-Qiao Zhu, Joakim Sundh, Jake Spicer, Nick Chater, Adam N Sanborn","doi":"10.1037/rev0000427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Normative models of decision-making that optimally transform noisy (sensory) information into categorical decisions qualitatively mismatch human behavior. Indeed, leading computational models have only achieved high empirical corroboration by adding task-specific assumptions that deviate from normative principles. In response, we offer a Bayesian approach that implicitly produces a posterior distribution of possible answers (hypotheses) in response to sensory information. But we assume that the brain has no direct access to this posterior, but can only <i>sample</i> hypotheses according to their posterior probabilities. Accordingly, we argue that the primary problem of normative concern in decision-making is integrating stochastic <i>hypotheses</i>, rather than stochastic sensory information, to make categorical decisions. This implies that human response variability arises mainly from posterior sampling rather than sensory noise. Because human hypothesis generation is serially correlated, hypothesis samples will be autocorrelated. Guided by this new problem formulation, we develop a new process, the Autocorrelated Bayesian Sampler (ABS), which grounds autocorrelated hypothesis generation in a sophisticated sampling algorithm. The ABS provides a single mechanism that qualitatively explains many empirical effects of probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choice, confidence judgments, response times, and their relationships. Our analysis demonstrates the unifying power of a perspective shift in the exploration of normative models. It also exemplifies the proposal that the \"Bayesian brain\" operates using samples not probabilities, and that variability in human behavior may primarily reflect computational rather than sensory noise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11115360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000427","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Normative models of decision-making that optimally transform noisy (sensory) information into categorical decisions qualitatively mismatch human behavior. Indeed, leading computational models have only achieved high empirical corroboration by adding task-specific assumptions that deviate from normative principles. In response, we offer a Bayesian approach that implicitly produces a posterior distribution of possible answers (hypotheses) in response to sensory information. But we assume that the brain has no direct access to this posterior, but can only sample hypotheses according to their posterior probabilities. Accordingly, we argue that the primary problem of normative concern in decision-making is integrating stochastic hypotheses, rather than stochastic sensory information, to make categorical decisions. This implies that human response variability arises mainly from posterior sampling rather than sensory noise. Because human hypothesis generation is serially correlated, hypothesis samples will be autocorrelated. Guided by this new problem formulation, we develop a new process, the Autocorrelated Bayesian Sampler (ABS), which grounds autocorrelated hypothesis generation in a sophisticated sampling algorithm. The ABS provides a single mechanism that qualitatively explains many empirical effects of probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choice, confidence judgments, response times, and their relationships. Our analysis demonstrates the unifying power of a perspective shift in the exploration of normative models. It also exemplifies the proposal that the "Bayesian brain" operates using samples not probabilities, and that variability in human behavior may primarily reflect computational rather than sensory noise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

自相关贝叶斯采样器:概率判断、估计、置信区间、选择、置信判断和响应时间的合理过程。
将嘈杂(感官)信息最优化地转化为分类决策的规范决策模型与人类行为在本质上并不匹配。事实上,领先的计算模型只有通过添加偏离规范原则的特定任务假设,才能获得较高的经验佐证。作为回应,我们提供了一种贝叶斯方法,这种方法会根据感官信息隐含地生成可能答案(假设)的后验分布。但我们假定,大脑无法直接获取这种后验分布,而只能根据后验概率对假设进行抽样。因此,我们认为,决策中规范性关注的首要问题是整合随机假设,而不是随机感官信息,以做出分类决策。这意味着人类反应的变异性主要来自于后验取样,而非感觉噪声。由于人类假设的产生具有序列相关性,因此假设样本将具有自相关性。在这一新问题表述的指导下,我们开发了一种新的程序--自相关贝叶斯采样器(ABS),它将自相关假设的生成置于复杂的采样算法中。自相关贝叶斯取样器提供了一种单一的机制,可以定性地解释概率判断、估计、置信区间、选择、置信判断、响应时间及其关系的许多经验效应。我们的分析展示了在探索规范模型时视角转换的统一力量。它还例证了 "贝叶斯大脑 "使用样本而非概率进行运作的提议,以及人类行为的可变性可能主要反映了计算噪音而非感官噪音。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信