Article

The neural basis of decision making.

Department of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6074, USA.
Annual Review of Neuroscience (Impact Factor: 22.66). 02/2007; 30:535-74. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The study of decision making spans such varied fields as neuroscience, psychology, economics, statistics, political science, and computer science. Despite this diversity of applications, most decisions share common elements including deliberation and commitment. Here we evaluate recent progress in understanding how these basic elements of decision formation are implemented in the brain. We focus on simple decisions that can be studied in the laboratory but emphasize general principles likely to extend to other settings.

6 Followers
 · 
159 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has long been known that a person's race can affect their decisions about people of another race; an observation that clearly taps into some deep societal issues. However, in order to behave differently in response to someone else's race, you must first categorise that person as other-race. The current study investigates the process of race-categorisation. Two groups of participants, Asian and Caucasian, rapidly classified facial images that varied from strongly Asian, through racially intermediate, to strongly Caucasian. In agreement with previous findings, there was a difference in category boundary between the two groups. Asian participants more frequently judged intermediate images as Caucasian and vice versa. We fitted a decision model, the Ratcliff diffusion model, to our two choice reaction time data. This model provides an account of the processes thought to underlie binary choice decisions. Within its architecture it has two components that could reasonably lead to a difference in race category boundary, these being evidence accumulation rate and a priori bias. The latter is the expectation or prior belief that a participant brings to the task, whilst the former indexes sensitivity to race-dependent perceptual cues. Whilst we find no good evidence for a difference in a priori bias between our two groups, we do find evidence for a difference in evidence accumulation rate. Our Asian participants were more sensitive to Caucasian cues within the images than were our Caucasian participants (and vice versa). These results support the idea that differences in perceptual sensitivity to race-defining visual characteristics drive differences in race categorisation. We propose that our findings fit with a wider view in which perceptual adaptation plays a central role in the visual processing of own and other race. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Cognition 06/2015; 139. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.011 · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has long been known that a person's race can affect their decisions about people of another race; an observation that clearly taps into some deep societal issues. However, in order to behave differently in response to someone else's race, you must first categorise that person as other-race. The current study investigates the process of race-categorisation. Two groups of participants, Asian and Caucasian, rapidly classified facial images that varied from strongly Asian, through racially intermediate, to strongly Caucasian. In agreement with previous findings, there was a difference in category boundary between the two groups. Asian participants more frequently judged intermediate images as Caucasian and vice versa. We fitted a decision model, the Ratcliff diffusion model, to our two choice reaction time data. This model provides an account of the processes thought to underlie binary choice decisions. Within its architecture it has two components that could reasonably lead to a difference in race category boundary, these being evidence accumulation rate and a pri-ori bias. The latter is the expectation or prior belief that a participant brings to the task, whilst the former indexes sensitivity to race-dependent perceptual cues. Whilst we find no good evidence for a difference in a priori bias between our two groups, we do find evidence for a difference in evidence accumulation rate. Our Asian participants were more sensitive to Caucasian cues within the images than were our Caucasian participants (and vice versa). These results support the idea that differences in perceptual sensitivity to race-defining visual characteristics drive differences in race categorisation. We propose that our findings fit with a wider view in which perceptual adaptation plays a central role in the visual processing of own and other race.
    Cognition 06/2015; 139:18-27. · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Motivated by the impact of superresolution methods for imaging, we undertake a detailed and systematic analysis of localization acuity for a biomimetic fingertip and a flat region of tactile skin. We identify three key factors underlying superresolution that enable the perceptual acuity to surpass the sensor resolution: (i) the sensor is constructed with multiple overlapping, broad but sensitive receptive fields; (ii) the tactile perception method interpolates between receptors (taxels) to attain sub-taxel acuity; (iii) active perception ensures robustness to unknown initial contact location. All factors follow from active Bayesian perception applied to biomimetic tactile sensors with an elastomeric covering that spreads the contact over multiple taxels. In consequence, we attain extreme superresolution with a thirty-fold improvement of localization acuity (0.12mm) over sensor resolution (4mm). We envisage that these principles will enable cheap, high-acuity tactile sensors that are highly customizable to suit their robotic use. Practical applications encompass any scenario where an end-effector must be placed accurately via the sense of touch.
    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 04/2015; 31(3). DOI:10.1109/TRO.2015.2414135 · 2.65 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
6 Downloads
Available from