IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003854.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pupil-Linked Arousal Determines Variability in Perceptual Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Peter R Murphy
  • Joachim Vandekerckhove
  • Sander Nieuwenhuis

Abstract

Decision making between several alternatives is thought to involve the gradual accumulation of evidence in favor of each available choice. This process is profoundly variable even for nominally identical stimuli, yet the neuro-cognitive substrates that determine the magnitude of this variability are poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that arousal state is a powerful determinant of variability in perceptual decision making. We measured pupil size, a highly sensitive index of arousal, while human subjects performed a motion-discrimination task, and decomposed task behavior into latent decision making parameters using an established computational model of the decision process. In direct contrast to previous theoretical accounts specifying a role for arousal in several discrete aspects of decision making, we found that pupil diameter was uniquely related to a model parameter representing variability in the rate of decision evidence accumulation: Periods of increased pupil size, reflecting heightened arousal, were characterized by greater variability in accumulation rate. Pupil diameter also correlated trial-by-trial with specific patterns of behavior that collectively are diagnostic of changing accumulation rate variability, and explained substantial individual differences in this computational quantity. These findings provide a uniquely clear account of how arousal state impacts decision making, and may point to a relationship between pupil-linked neuromodulation and behavioral variability. They also pave the way for future studies aimed at augmenting the precision with which people make decisions.Author Summary: Variability is a hallmark of how we make decisions between different alternatives: Even when we are presented with identical repetitions of a stimulus, the timing and accuracy of our associated decisions vary dramatically. Representations of variability or ‘noise’ have necessarily been a prominent feature of how cognitive scientists model the decision making process. However, very little is known about the underlying neural processes or psychophysiological states that determine the magnitude of this variability. In this study, we measured people's pupil size as an indicator of their physiological arousal state during performance of a challenging motion-discrimination task, and modelled decisions on this task using an established computational model of the decision process in which evidence gradually accumulates toward a response threshold. We found that arousal state was tightly and uniquely linked to a computational parameter that specifically represents variability in the rate at which people accumulate evidence to inform their decisions: Larger pupil size, both within- and between-individuals, corresponded to greater variability in this critical aspect of decision making. Our findings uncover a potent source of variability in how people make decisions, and forge a new link between the classical construct of arousal and modern theories of decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter R Murphy & Joachim Vandekerckhove & Sander Nieuwenhuis, 2014. "Pupil-Linked Arousal Determines Variability in Perceptual Decision Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003854
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003854
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003854&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003854?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael L. Platt & Paul W. Glimcher, 1999. "Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6741), pages 233-238, July.
    2. Behrad Noudoost & Tirin Moore, 2011. "Control of visual cortical signals by prefrontal dopamine," Nature, Nature, vol. 474(7351), pages 372-375, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruud L van den Brink & Peter R Murphy & Sander Nieuwenhuis, 2016. "Pupil Diameter Tracks Lapses of Attention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Christopher M Warren & Robert C Wilson & Nic J van der Wee & Eric J Giltay & Martijn S van Noorden & Jonathan D Cohen & Sander Nieuwenhuis, 2017. "The effect of atomoxetine on random and directed exploration in humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thore Apitz & Nico Bunzeck, 2014. "Early Effects of Reward Anticipation Are Modulated by Dopaminergic Stimulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Laurette Dubé & Antoine Bechara & Ulf Böckenholt & Asim Ansari & Alain Dagher & Mark Daniel & Wayne DeSarbo & Lesley Fellows & Ross Hammond & Terry Huang & Scott Huettel & Yan Kestens & Bärbel Knäuper, 2009. "Towards a brain-to-society systems model of individual choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 105-106, March.
    3. Glimcher, Paul W. & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2023. "Expected subjective value theory (ESVT): A representation of decision under risk and certainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 110-128.
    4. Jan B Engelmann & C Monica Capra & Charles Noussair & Gregory S Berns, 2009. "Expert Financial Advice Neurobiologically “Offloads” Financial Decision-Making under Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Jeffrey J Stott & A David Redish, 2015. "Representations of Value in the Brain: An Embarrassment of Riches?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-7, June.
    6. Wan-Yu Shih & Hsiang-Yu Yu & Cheng-Chia Lee & Chien-Chen Chou & Chien Chen & Paul W. Glimcher & Shih-Wei Wu, 2023. "Electrophysiological population dynamics reveal context dependencies during decision making in human frontal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    7. Knutson, Brian & Peterson, Richard, 2005. "Neurally reconstructing expected utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 305-315, August.
    8. Valeria Faralla & Francesca Benuzzi & Fausta Lui & Patrizia Baraldi & Paolo Nichelli & Nicola Dimitri, 2010. "Gains and Losses: A Common Neural Network for Economic Behaviour," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 033, University of Siena.
    9. Ryan Webb & Paul W. Glimcher & Kenway Louie, 2021. "The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, January.
    10. Zhewei Zhang & Chaoqun Yin & Tianming Yang, 2022. "Evidence accumulation occurs locally in the parietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Engelmann, Jan B. & Damaraju, Eswar & Padmala, Srikanth & Pessoa, Luiz, 2009. "Combined effects of attention and motivation on visual task performance: transient and sustained motivational effects," MPRA Paper 52133, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    13. David Florentino Montez & Finnegan J Calabro & Beatriz Luna, 2019. "Working memory improves developmentally as neural processes stabilize," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Stanton, Angela A., 2008. "Neuroeconomics: A Critique of 'Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration'," MPRA Paper 7928, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Johannes Rüter & Nicolas Marcille & Henning Sprekeler & Wulfram Gerstner & Michael H Herzog, 2012. "Paradoxical Evidence Integration in Rapid Decision Processes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, February.
    16. Bhatt, Meghana & Camerer, Colin F., 2005. "Self-referential thinking and equilibrium as states of mind in games: fMRI evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 424-459, August.
    17. Filip Gesiarz & Donal Cahill & Tali Sharot, 2019. "Evidence accumulation is biased by motivation: A computational account," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    18. B. Douglas Bernheim, 2009. "On the Potential of Neuroeconomics: A Critical (but Hopeful) Appraisal," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-41, August.
    19. Conover, Kent L. & Shizgal, Peter, 2005. "Employing labor-supply theory to measure the reward value of electrical brain stimulation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 283-304, August.
    20. Herold, Florian & Netzer, Nick, 2023. "Second-best probability weighting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 112-125.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003854. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.