Laboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2022 Jul 27;18(7):e1010318. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010318. eCollection 2022 Jul.
Perceptual confidence is an important internal signal about the certainty of our decisions and there is a substantial debate on how it is computed. We highlight three confidence metric types from the literature: observers either use 1) the full probability distribution to compute probability correct (Probability metrics), 2) point estimates from the perceptual decision process to estimate uncertainty (Evidence-Strength metrics), or 3) heuristic confidence from stimulus-based cues to uncertainty (Heuristic metrics). These metrics are rarely tested against one another, so we examined models of all three types on a suprathreshold spatial discrimination task. Observers were shown a cloud of dots sampled from a dot generating distribution and judged if the mean of the distribution was left or right of centre. In addition to varying the horizontal position of the mean, there were two sensory uncertainty manipulations: the number of dots sampled and the spread of the generating distribution. After every two perceptual decisions, observers made a confidence forced-choice judgement whether they were more confident in the first or second decision. Model results showed that the majority of observers were best-fit by either: 1) the Heuristic model, which used dot cloud position, spread, and number of dots as cues; or 2) an Evidence-Strength model, which computed the distance between the sensory measurement and discrimination criterion, scaled according to sensory uncertainty. An accidental repetition of some sessions also allowed for the measurement of confidence agreement for identical pairs of stimuli. This N-pass analysis revealed that human observers were more consistent than their best-fitting model would predict, indicating there are still aspects of confidence that are not captured by our modelling. As such, we propose confidence agreement as a useful technique for computational studies of confidence. Taken together, these findings highlight the idiosyncratic nature of confidence computations for complex decision contexts and the need to consider different potential metrics and transformations in the confidence computation.
感知信心是关于我们决策确定性的重要内部信号,关于如何计算它存在着大量的争论。我们从文献中突出了三种信心度量类型:观察者要么使用 1)完整的概率分布来计算正确的概率(概率度量),要么使用 2)从感知决策过程中得出的点估计来估计不确定性(证据强度度量),要么使用 3)基于刺激的线索的启发式信心来估计不确定性(启发式度量)。这些度量标准很少相互测试,因此我们在阈上空间辨别任务上检验了所有三种类型的模型。观察者被展示了从点生成分布中采样的点云,并判断分布的均值是在中心的左侧还是右侧。除了改变均值的水平位置外,还有两种感觉不确定性操作:采样的点数和生成分布的扩展。在每次两个感知决策之后,观察者会进行信心强制选择判断,他们对第一个还是第二个决策更有信心。模型结果表明,大多数观察者要么是由 1)启发式模型最佳拟合的,该模型使用点云位置、扩展和点数作为线索;要么是由 2)证据强度模型最佳拟合的,该模型根据感觉不确定性来计算感觉测量和辨别标准之间的距离。对一些偶然重复的一些会话也允许对相同刺激对的信心一致性进行测量。这个 N 次通过分析表明,人类观察者比其最佳拟合模型预测的更一致,这表明信心的某些方面仍然无法通过我们的模型捕捉到。因此,我们提出信心一致性作为信心计算的计算研究的有用技术。综上所述,这些发现强调了在复杂决策情境中信心计算的独特性质,以及需要考虑信心计算中的不同潜在度量标准和变换。