Perceptual learning, roving and the unsupervised bias

Perceptual learning improves perception through training. Perceptual learning improves with most stimulus types but fails when . certain stimulus types are mixed during training (roving). This result is surprising because classical supervised and unsupervised neural network models can cope easily with roving conditions. What makes humans so inferior compared to these models? As experimental and conceptual work has shown, human perceptual learning is neither supervised nor unsupervised but reward-based learning. Reward-based learning suffers from the so-called unsupervised bias, i.e., to prevent synaptic " drift" , the . average reward has to be exactly estimated. However, this is impossible when two or more stimulus types with different rewards are presented during training (and the reward is estimated by a running average). For this reason, we propose no learning occurs in roving conditions. However, roving hinders perceptual learning only for combinations of similar stimulus types but not for dissimilar ones. In this latter case, we propose that a critic can estimate the reward for each stimulus type separately. One implication of our analysis is that the critic cannot be located in the visual system. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Paradoxical evidence integration in rapid decision processes

Decisions about noisy stimuli require evidence integration over time. Traditionally, evidence integration and decision making are described as a one-stage process: a decision is made when evidence for the presence of a stimulus crosses a threshold. Here, we show that one-stage models cannot explain psychophysical experiments on feature fusion, where two visual stimuli are presented in rapid succession. Paradoxically, the second stimulus biases decisions more strongly than the first one, contrary to predictions of one-stage models and intuition. We present a two-stage model where sensory information is integrated and buffered before it is fed into a drift diffusion process. The model is tested in a series of psychophysical experiments and explains both accuracy and reaction time distributions. © 2012 Rüter et al.

The Silent Period of Evidence Integration in Fast Decision Making

In a typical experiment on decision making, one out of two possible stimuli is displayed and observers decide which one was presented. Recently, Stanford and colleagues (2010) introduced a new variant of this classical one-stimulus presentation paradigm to investigate the speed of decision making. They found evidence for "perceptual decision making in less than 30 ms". Here, we extended this one-stimulus compelled-response paradigm to a two-stimulus compelled-response paradigm in which a vernier was followed immediately by a second vernier with opposite offset direction. The two verniers and their offsets fuse. Only one vernier is perceived. When observers are asked to indicate the offset direction of the fused vernier, the offset of the second vernier dominates perception. Even for long vernier durations, the second vernier dominates decisions indicating that decision making can take substantial time. In accordance with previous studies, we suggest that our results are best explained with a two-stage model of decision making where a leaky evidence integration stage precedes a race-to-threshold process. © 2013 Rüter et al.