Optimal multisensory decision-making in a reaction-time task

• Published in: eLife Vol. 3
• Main Authors: Drugowitsch, Jan, DeAngelis, Gregory C, Klier, Eliana M, Angelaki, Dora E, Pouget, Alexandre
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England eLife Sciences Publications Ltd 14.06.2014; eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Behavior; Binomial distribution; Clinical decision making; Computer applications; cue combination; Cues; Decision Making; diffusion model; Female; Human performance; Human subjects; Humans; Male; Motion Perception; Neurons - physiology; Neuroscience; Psychomotor Performance; Reaction Time; Reaction time task; Velocity; Vestibular system; Visual discrimination; Visual Perception; Young Adult; reaction time; decision-making; diffusion models; human; neuroscience; cue combination
• ISSN: 2050-084X; 2050-084X
• DOI: 10.7554/eLife.03005

Humans and animals can integrate sensory evidence from various sources to make decisions in a statistically near-optimal manner, provided that the stimulus presentation time is fixed across trials. Little is known about whether optimality is preserved when subjects can choose when to make a decision (reaction-time task), nor when sensory inputs have time-varying reliability. Using a reaction-time version of a visual/vestibular heading discrimination task, we show that behavior is clearly sub-optimal when quantified with traditional optimality metrics that ignore reaction times. We created a computational model that accumulates evidence optimally across both cues and time, and trades off accuracy with decision speed. This model quantitatively explains subjects's choices and reaction times, supporting the hypothesis that subjects do, in fact, accumulate evidence optimally over time and across sensory modalities, even when the reaction time is under the subject's control. Imagine trying out a new roller-coaster ride and doing your best to figure out if you are being hurled to the left or to the right. You might think that this task would be easier if your eyes were open because you could rely on information from your eyes and also from the vestibular system in your ears. This is also what cue combination theory says—our ability to discriminate between two potential outcomes is enhanced when we can draw on more than one of the senses. However, previous tests of cue combination theory have been limited in that test subjects have been asked to respond after receiving information for a fixed period of time whereas, in real life, we tend to make a decision as soon as we have gathered sufficient information. Now, using data collected from seven human subjects in a simulator, Drugowitsch et al. have confirmed that test subjects do indeed give more correct answers in more realistic conditions when they have two sources of information to rely on, rather than only one. What makes this result surprising? Traditional cue combination theories do not consider that slower decisions allow us to process more information and therefore tend to be more accurate. Drugowitsch et al. show that this shortcoming causes such theories to conclude that multiple information sources might lead to worse decisions. For example, some of their test subjects made less accurate choices when they were presented with both visual and vestibular information, compared to when only visual information was available, because they made these choices very rapidly. By developing a theory that takes into account both reaction times and choice accuracy, Drugowitsch et al. were able to show that, despite different trade-offs between speed and accuracy, test subjects still combined the information from their eyes and ears in a way that was close to ideal. As such the work offers a more thorough account of human decision making.