Download Decision Making Theories and Neuroscience

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

General circulation model wikipedia , lookup

Central pattern generator wikipedia , lookup

Computer simulation wikipedia , lookup

Data assimilation wikipedia , lookup

Neuroinformatics wikipedia , lookup

History of numerical weather prediction wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
Decision Making Theories in
Neuroscience
Alexander Vostroknutov
October 2008
Choice in the brain
From Sugrue, Corrado and Newsome
Nature Neuroscience, 2005, Vol 6, May 2005
• Weak motion – chance performance; strong motion – optimal performance
• “Decision making” area should aggregate noisy signal and suggest the
decision
Monkey brain
From Sugrue, Corrado and Newsome
Nature Neuroscience, 2005, Vol 6, May 2005
•
•
•
•
•
LIP area – part of visuo-motor pathway
Its activation is covaried with choice AND modulated by movement strength
during motion
not purely sensory (mistake trials);
not purely decision oriented (modulated by strength of movement)
LIP is where “deliberation” takes place
Three processes of choice
From Bogacz, 2007,
TRENDS in Cog. Sci., Vol 11(3)
• Neurons in Visual cortex provide evidence for alternatives (noisy)
• Intergation takes place (in LIP), removes noise
• The choice is made once certain criterion is reached (confidence level)
Optimal decision making
• This procedure can be formulated as a statistical problem
• Statistical test to optimize decision making
• It can be tested whether the brain implements
optimal test (evolution)
• Links optimal tests with neurobiology (basal ganglia)
• and behavior (speed-accuracy tradeoff)
Optimality criterion
• Sequential Probability Ratio Test (Wald)
• A procedure to distinguish two distributions H0: p=p0 and
H1: p= p1 given a sequence of observations {yn}
• Sum log-likelihood ratios of incoming data and stop once
threshold is reached:
Sn = Sn-1 + log(p0(yn)/p1(yn))
• Given fixed accuracy, SPRT requires the least expected
number of observations
• Animals would be interested in implementing SPRT:
minimizes reaction time
Diffusion model (2 alternatives)
Input A
A-B
Input B
Integrator (I)
I > 5: choose A
I < -5: choose B
• Is there simple way to implement SPRT?
• Integrator accumulates evidence about the difference of inputs
In = In-1 + An - Bn
• Once threshold is reached (|In| > 5), choose A or B
Diffusion Model is optimal
• Continuous limit of SPRT can be described by Wiener
process with drift (Bogacz et al, 2006)
dy = (mA-mB)dt + cdW
• Choose once threshold is reached
(assumed: A and B are normal, same variance)
•
•
•
•
mA is mean of alternative A
This is exactly Diffusion Model!
Thus DM implements SPRT
Given fixed accuracy, DM has the best reaction time
(important for animals)
• Simple to implement in neural networks
(requires only addition and subtraction)
Connection to the brain
• How can we test whether something like diffusion model
is implemented in the brain?
• We have evidence (LIP) of the presence of intergators
• We need evidence for the presence of “criterion
satisfying” region
• Good candidate: basal ganglia
• They resolve competition between cortical and subcortical systems that want expression
• Inhibit all actions; the “winning system” is allowed to
express itself through disinhibition
Diffusion Model (n alternatives)
Input A1
A1 – ln[exp(A2)+exp(A3)]
I1
Input A2
A2 – ln[exp(A1)+exp(A3)]
I2
Input A3
A3 – ln[exp(A1)+exp(A2)]
I3
•
•
•
•
DMn implements optimal MULTI SPRT
Uses exponentiation
Neurons which exponentiate are rare
Good evidence for Diffusion Model
choose whenever
any of these is
higher than
threshold
Evidence
• Bogacz, 2007 reports studies that demonstrate that
neurons in subthalamic nucleus (STN) perform
exponentiation
• STN targets output nuclei of basal ganglia, that “decide”
on which system to allow to act
More evidence
Diffusion Model and Economics
• Difficult to perceive the difference between n and n+1 grains of
sugar
• Non-transitivity of indifference
• Beyond the scope of classical preferences model
• DM suggests a simple and natural way to model this
Diffusion Model and Economics
A, B available:
A
80%
B
20%
price
A
B
A, B, C available:
A
50%
B
50%
C
quality
• Violation of Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference
(recent evidence: Kroll, Vogt, 08)
•
•
•
•
Again, DM with 3 alternatives gives simple explanation
Prospect Theory, Regret do not account for this
Can save the “existence” of underlying preferences
Additional prediction of DM: smaller reaction time in second case
Diffusion Model and Economics
S1 = $1
R1 = ($5, 0.1; $1, 0.89; $0, 0.01)
S2 = ($1, 0.11; $0, 0.89)
R2 = ($5, 0.1; $0, 0. 9)
EU maximizer prefers S’s or R’s
Evidence: S1 > R1 and R2 > S2
• Allais paradox: violation of Expected Utility maximization
• In choice between S1 and R1: information about S1 is accumulated
much faster than about R1: high chance of hitting S1 threshold
• In choice between S2 and R2: information accumulates at
comparable speeds, R2 is almost like S2, only with $5 instead of $1,
high chance to hit R2 threshold first
• Additional prediction of DM: reaction time in S1-R1 choice is shorter
than in S2-R2
• No need to get rid of Expected Utility
Conclusion
• It seems like there is evidence that Diffusion Model is
implemented in the brain
• Sensory inputs are integrated in the respective pre-motor
regions (LIP)
• Basal ganglia check which option should be chosen by
comparing competing “integrators” to the threshold
• Important for economists. DM explains with ease many
different phenomena