Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Instituto de Neurociencias de Alicante, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas-Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Spain.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2021 Oct 4;17(10):e1009455. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009455. eCollection 2021 Oct.
A standard view in the literature is that decisions are the result of a process that accumulates evidence in favor of each alternative until such accumulation reaches a threshold and a decision is made. However, this view has been recently questioned by an alternative proposal that suggests that, instead of accumulated, evidence is combined with an urgency signal. Both theories have been mathematically formalized and supported by a variety of decision-making tasks with constant information. However, recently, tasks with changing information have shown to be more effective to study the dynamics of decision making. Recent research using one of such tasks, the tokens task, has shown that decisions are better described by an urgency mechanism than by an accumulation one. However, the results of that study could depend on a task where all fundamental information was noiseless and always present, favoring a mechanism of non-integration, such as the urgency one. Here, we wanted to address whether the same conclusions were also supported by an experimental paradigm in which sensory evidence was removed shortly after it was provided, making working memory necessary to properly perform the task. Here, we show that, under such condition, participants' behavior could be explained by an urgency-gating mechanism that low-pass filters the mnemonic information and combines it with an urgency signal that grows with time but not by an accumulation process that integrates the same mnemonic information. Thus, our study supports the idea that, under certain situations with dynamic sensory information, decisions are better explained by an urgency-gating mechanism than by an accumulation one.
一种被广泛认可的观点认为,决策是一个证据积累的过程,该过程会持续为每个备选方案积累有利证据,直到达到某个阈值,从而做出决策。然而,最近有一种替代观点对该观点提出了质疑,认为证据不是被积累的,而是与一个紧急信号相结合。这两种理论都已经通过各种具有恒定信息的决策任务进行了数学形式化,并得到了支持。然而,最近,具有变化信息的任务被证明更有助于研究决策的动态。最近的一项使用这种任务之一——代币任务的研究表明,与积累机制相比,紧急机制更能准确描述决策。然而,该研究的结果可能取决于这样一种任务,即所有基本信息都是无噪声且始终存在的,这有利于非整合机制,例如紧急机制。在这里,我们想探讨在另一种实验范式中是否也支持相同的结论,在这种范式中,感官信息在提供后不久就被移除,从而需要工作记忆才能正确完成任务。在这里,我们表明,在这种情况下,参与者的行为可以用紧急门控机制来解释,该机制对记忆信息进行低通滤波,并将其与随时间增长的紧急信号相结合,而不是通过整合相同记忆信息的积累过程来解释。因此,我们的研究支持了这样一种观点,即在具有动态感官信息的某些情况下,紧急门控机制比积累机制更能准确地解释决策。