Ann Huang, Mathis Pink, Viktoria Zemliak, Artur Czeszumski, Peter König
{"title":"二元决策中的选择历史偏差。","authors":"Ann Huang, Mathis Pink, Viktoria Zemliak, Artur Czeszumski, Peter König","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do we interact with our environment and make decisions about the world around us? Empirical research using psychophysical tasks has demonstrated that our perceptual decisions are influenced by past choices, a phenomenon known as the \"choice history bias\" effect. This decision-making process suggests that the brain adapts to environmental uncertainties based on history. However, single-subject experiment task design is prevalent across the work on choice history bias, thus limiting the implications of the empirical evidence to individual decisions. Here, we explore the choice history bias effect using a dual-participant approach, where dyads perform a shared perceptual decision-making task. We first propose two competing hypotheses: the participants equally weigh their own and their partner's decision history, or the participants do not weigh equally their own and their partner's decision history. We then use a statistical modeling approach to fit generalized linear models to the choice data in a series of steps and arrive at a model that best fits the observed data. Our results indicated that the own and partner's trial history cannot be treated independently. The findings suggest an interaction of actor and decision at 1-back, leading to a choice alternation bias after a partner's decision in contrast to a choice repetition bias after an own decision. A similar effect is observed at 2-back, in addition to an additive choice repetition bias of similar size. The effects of actor and decision at 2-back do not depend on the properties of the 1-back trial. Together, these findings support the idea that the participants do not ignore their partner's decisions but treat these qualitatively differently from their own.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"11420"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968856/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choice history biases in dyadic decision making.\",\"authors\":\"Ann Huang, Mathis Pink, Viktoria Zemliak, Artur Czeszumski, Peter König\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How do we interact with our environment and make decisions about the world around us? Empirical research using psychophysical tasks has demonstrated that our perceptual decisions are influenced by past choices, a phenomenon known as the \\\"choice history bias\\\" effect. This decision-making process suggests that the brain adapts to environmental uncertainties based on history. However, single-subject experiment task design is prevalent across the work on choice history bias, thus limiting the implications of the empirical evidence to individual decisions. Here, we explore the choice history bias effect using a dual-participant approach, where dyads perform a shared perceptual decision-making task. We first propose two competing hypotheses: the participants equally weigh their own and their partner's decision history, or the participants do not weigh equally their own and their partner's decision history. We then use a statistical modeling approach to fit generalized linear models to the choice data in a series of steps and arrive at a model that best fits the observed data. Our results indicated that the own and partner's trial history cannot be treated independently. The findings suggest an interaction of actor and decision at 1-back, leading to a choice alternation bias after a partner's decision in contrast to a choice repetition bias after an own decision. A similar effect is observed at 2-back, in addition to an additive choice repetition bias of similar size. The effects of actor and decision at 2-back do not depend on the properties of the 1-back trial. Together, these findings support the idea that the participants do not ignore their partner's decisions but treat these qualitatively differently from their own.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"11420\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968856/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
How do we interact with our environment and make decisions about the world around us? Empirical research using psychophysical tasks has demonstrated that our perceptual decisions are influenced by past choices, a phenomenon known as the "choice history bias" effect. This decision-making process suggests that the brain adapts to environmental uncertainties based on history. However, single-subject experiment task design is prevalent across the work on choice history bias, thus limiting the implications of the empirical evidence to individual decisions. Here, we explore the choice history bias effect using a dual-participant approach, where dyads perform a shared perceptual decision-making task. We first propose two competing hypotheses: the participants equally weigh their own and their partner's decision history, or the participants do not weigh equally their own and their partner's decision history. We then use a statistical modeling approach to fit generalized linear models to the choice data in a series of steps and arrive at a model that best fits the observed data. Our results indicated that the own and partner's trial history cannot be treated independently. The findings suggest an interaction of actor and decision at 1-back, leading to a choice alternation bias after a partner's decision in contrast to a choice repetition bias after an own decision. A similar effect is observed at 2-back, in addition to an additive choice repetition bias of similar size. The effects of actor and decision at 2-back do not depend on the properties of the 1-back trial. Together, these findings support the idea that the participants do not ignore their partner's decisions but treat these qualitatively differently from their own.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.