常见的神经选择信号反映的是积累的证据,而不是信心。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Kobe Desender, Andi Smet, Deniz Erdil, Esna Mualla Gunay, Yvonne F Visser, Pierre Le Denmat, Hélène Van Marcke
{"title":"常见的神经选择信号反映的是积累的证据,而不是信心。","authors":"Kobe Desender, Andi Smet, Deniz Erdil, Esna Mualla Gunay, Yvonne F Visser, Pierre Le Denmat, Hélène Van Marcke","doi":"10.1093/cercor/bhaf257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Centro-parietal electroencephalogram signals (centro-parietal positivity and error positivity) correlate with the reported level of confidence. According to recent computational work these signals reflect evidence which feeds into the computation of confidence, not directly confidence. To test this prediction, we causally manipulated prior beliefs to selectively affect confidence, while leaving objective task performance unaffected. Behaviorally, we found that manipulating prior beliefs causally affected confidence without corresponding changes in accuracy and a negligible effect on reaction times. The electroencephalogram data showed a monotonic relation between the reported level of confidence and both centro-parietal positivity and error positivity amplitudes. Importantly, this finding is compatible both with the theory that these signals track confidence as well as with the alternative theory that they track accumulated evidence. Critically, both neural signals were insensitive to the influence of prior beliefs on confidence, showing that they reflect the accumulated evidence that is used by the system to compute confidence, not directly confidence. Likewise, oscillatory activity in alpha and beta band was insensitive to the influence of prior beliefs on confidence. Decoding analyses revealed that the brain does hold shared representations for prior beliefs and confidence, and we identified a frontal signal that is sensitive to both confidence and prior beliefs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9715,"journal":{"name":"Cerebral cortex","volume":"35 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common neural choice signals reflect accumulated evidence, not confidence.\",\"authors\":\"Kobe Desender, Andi Smet, Deniz Erdil, Esna Mualla Gunay, Yvonne F Visser, Pierre Le Denmat, Hélène Van Marcke\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cercor/bhaf257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Centro-parietal electroencephalogram signals (centro-parietal positivity and error positivity) correlate with the reported level of confidence. According to recent computational work these signals reflect evidence which feeds into the computation of confidence, not directly confidence. To test this prediction, we causally manipulated prior beliefs to selectively affect confidence, while leaving objective task performance unaffected. Behaviorally, we found that manipulating prior beliefs causally affected confidence without corresponding changes in accuracy and a negligible effect on reaction times. The electroencephalogram data showed a monotonic relation between the reported level of confidence and both centro-parietal positivity and error positivity amplitudes. Importantly, this finding is compatible both with the theory that these signals track confidence as well as with the alternative theory that they track accumulated evidence. Critically, both neural signals were insensitive to the influence of prior beliefs on confidence, showing that they reflect the accumulated evidence that is used by the system to compute confidence, not directly confidence. Likewise, oscillatory activity in alpha and beta band was insensitive to the influence of prior beliefs on confidence. Decoding analyses revealed that the brain does hold shared representations for prior beliefs and confidence, and we identified a frontal signal that is sensitive to both confidence and prior beliefs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cerebral cortex\",\"volume\":\"35 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cerebral cortex\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaf257\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cerebral cortex","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaf257","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中央-顶叶脑电图信号(中央-顶叶阳性和错误阳性)与报告的置信度水平相关。根据最近的计算工作,这些信号反映的是为置信度计算提供的证据,而不是直接的置信度。为了验证这一预测,我们对先验信念进行了因果操纵,选择性地影响了信心,同时不影响客观任务的表现。在行为上,我们发现操纵先前的信念会对信心产生因果影响,但对准确性没有相应的改变,对反应时间的影响可以忽略不计。脑电图数据显示,报告的置信度水平与中央顶叶阳性和误差阳性幅值之间呈单调关系。重要的是,这一发现既与这些信号追踪信心的理论相一致,也与它们追踪累积证据的替代理论相一致。关键是,这两个神经信号都对先验信念对置信度的影响不敏感,这表明它们反映的是系统用来计算置信度的累积证据,而不是直接的置信度。同样,α和β波段的振荡活动对先验信念对信心的影响不敏感。解码分析显示,大脑确实拥有对先前信念和信心的共同表征,我们发现了一个对信心和先前信念都敏感的额叶信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Common neural choice signals reflect accumulated evidence, not confidence.

Centro-parietal electroencephalogram signals (centro-parietal positivity and error positivity) correlate with the reported level of confidence. According to recent computational work these signals reflect evidence which feeds into the computation of confidence, not directly confidence. To test this prediction, we causally manipulated prior beliefs to selectively affect confidence, while leaving objective task performance unaffected. Behaviorally, we found that manipulating prior beliefs causally affected confidence without corresponding changes in accuracy and a negligible effect on reaction times. The electroencephalogram data showed a monotonic relation between the reported level of confidence and both centro-parietal positivity and error positivity amplitudes. Importantly, this finding is compatible both with the theory that these signals track confidence as well as with the alternative theory that they track accumulated evidence. Critically, both neural signals were insensitive to the influence of prior beliefs on confidence, showing that they reflect the accumulated evidence that is used by the system to compute confidence, not directly confidence. Likewise, oscillatory activity in alpha and beta band was insensitive to the influence of prior beliefs on confidence. Decoding analyses revealed that the brain does hold shared representations for prior beliefs and confidence, and we identified a frontal signal that is sensitive to both confidence and prior beliefs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cerebral cortex
Cerebral cortex 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.10%
发文量
510
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Cerebral Cortex publishes papers on the development, organization, plasticity, and function of the cerebral cortex, including the hippocampus. Studies with clear relevance to the cerebral cortex, such as the thalamocortical relationship or cortico-subcortical interactions, are also included. The journal is multidisciplinary and covers the large variety of modern neurobiological and neuropsychological techniques, including anatomy, biochemistry, molecular neurobiology, electrophysiology, behavior, artificial intelligence, and theoretical modeling. In addition to research articles, special features such as brief reviews, book reviews, and commentaries are included.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信