Imperfect Bayesian inference in visual perception

• Published in: PLoS computational biology Vol. 15; no. 4; p. e1006465
• Main Authors: Stengård, Elina, van den Berg, Ronald
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 01.04.2019; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Analysis; Bayesian analysis; Bayesian information criterion; Computer applications; Decision making; Defects; Human performance; Inferential statistics; Localization; Mathematical models; Model testing; Noise; Optimization; Perception; Principles; Software; Statistical inference; Target detection; Uncertainty; Visual perception; Visual stimuli; Visual tasks; Sweden
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006465
• ISSN: 1553-7358; 1553-734X

Optimal Bayesian models have been highly successful in describing human performance on perceptual decision-making tasks, such as cue combination and visual search. However, recent studies have argued that these models are often overly flexible and therefore lack explanatory power. Moreover, there are indications that neural computation is inherently imprecise, which makes it implausible that humans would perform optimally on any non-trivial task. Here, we reconsider human performance on a visual-search task by using an approach that constrains model flexibility and tests for computational imperfections. Subjects performed a target detection task in which targets and distractors were tilted ellipses with orientations drawn from Gaussian distributions with different means. We varied the amount of overlap between these distributions to create multiple levels of external uncertainty. We also varied the level of sensory noise, by testing subjects under both short and unlimited display times. On average, empirical performance-measured as d'-fell 18.1% short of optimal performance. We found no evidence that the magnitude of this suboptimality was affected by the level of internal or external uncertainty. The data were well accounted for by a Bayesian model with imperfections in its computations. This "imperfect Bayesian" model convincingly outperformed the "flawless Bayesian" model as well as all ten heuristic models that we tested. These results suggest that perception is founded on Bayesian principles, but with suboptimalities in the implementation of these principles. The view of perception as imperfect Bayesian inference can provide a middle ground between traditional Bayesian and anti-Bayesian views.