IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting change: Approximate inference under explicit representation of temporal structure in changing environments

Author

Listed:
  • Dimitrije Marković
  • Andrea M F Reiter
  • Stefan J Kiebel

Abstract

In our daily lives timing of our actions plays an essential role when we navigate the complex everyday environment. It is an open question though how the representations of the temporal structure of the world influence our behavior. Here we propose a probabilistic model with an explicit representation of state durations which may provide novel insights in how the brain predicts upcoming changes. We illustrate several properties of the behavioral model using a standard reversal learning design and compare its task performance to standard reinforcement learning models. Furthermore, using experimental data, we demonstrate how the model can be applied to identify participants’ beliefs about the latent temporal task structure. We found that roughly one quarter of participants seem to have learned the latent temporal structure and used it to anticipate changes, whereas the remaining participants’ behavior did not show signs of anticipatory responses, suggesting a lack of precise temporal expectations. We expect that the introduced behavioral model will allow, in future studies, for a systematic investigation of how participants learn the underlying temporal structure of task environments and how these representations shape behavior.Author summary: Although time perception and timed behavior are essential for our everyday experience, it is still unclear how the human brain represents the underlying temporal regularities of our dynamic environment. These regularities and their representations in the brain are important to generate well-timed behavior. When deciding on the sequence of actions to complete most of our everyday tasks like cooking, driving, or even brushing our teeth, it is essential to represent and keep track of the durations of different parts of the tasks. Here we introduce a behavioral model of decision making in environments in which a change is at least partially predictable by the time it took since the last change. We show that human participants are using such predictions in the so-called reversal learning task, which simulates abrupt but not immediately obvious changes of the environment. We find that some but not all participants harness previously experienced regularities in these changes to anticipate when the next change is going to happen. We expect that a wide range of similar questions of how humans and other animals use temporal expectations to make their decisions in a dynamic environment can be addressed using the new modelling approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Dimitrije Marković & Andrea M F Reiter & Stefan J Kiebel, 2019. "Predicting change: Approximate inference under explicit representation of temporal structure in changing environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006707
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006707
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006707&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006707?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. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    2. Matthew Rabin & Dimitri Vayanos, 2010. "The Gambler's and Hot-Hand Fallacies: Theory and Applications," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(2), pages 730-778.
    3. Hu, Yingyao & Kayaba, Yutaka & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "Nonparametric learning rules from bandit experiments: The eyes have it!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 215-231.
    4. Elise Payzan-LeNestour & Peter Bossaerts, 2011. "Risk, Unexpected Uncertainty, and Estimation Uncertainty: Bayesian Learning in Unstable Settings," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    5. David M. Blei & Alp Kucukelbir & Jon D. McAuliffe, 2017. "Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(518), pages 859-877, April.
    6. Florent Meyniel & Daniel Schlunegger & Stanislas Dehaene, 2015. "The Sense of Confidence during Probabilistic Learning: A Normative Account," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    7. Masayuki Matsumoto & Okihide Hikosaka, 2009. "Two types of dopamine neuron distinctly convey positive and negative motivational signals," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7248), pages 837-841, June.
    8. Ryszard Auksztulewicz & Karl J Friston & Anna C Nobre, 2017. "Task relevance modulates the behavioural and neural effects of sensory predictions," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-27, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Micha Heilbron & Florent Meyniel, 2019. "Confidence resets reveal hierarchical adaptive learning in humans," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "How Experience Confirms the Gambler's Fallacy when Sample Size is Neglected," OSF Preprints m5xsk, Center for Open Science.
    3. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2015. "Is it a Fallacy to Believe in the Hot Hand in the NBA Three-Point Contest?," Working Papers 548, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    4. Daniel Chen & Tobias J. Moskowitz & Kelly Shue, 2016. "Decision-Making under the Gambler's Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," NBER Working Papers 22026, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Andrey Kudryavtsev & Gil Cohen & Shlomit Hon-Snir, 2013. "“Rational” or “Intuitive”: Are Behavioral Biases Correlated Across Stock Market Investors?," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 7(2), June.
    6. Si Chen, 2022. "Information and dynamic trading with the Gambler’s fallacy," Mathematics and Financial Economics, Springer, volume 16, number 1, June.
    7. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    8. Jia, Z. Tingting & McMahon, Matthew J., 2020. "Being watched in an investment game setting: Behavioral changes when making risky decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Yanlong Sun & Hongbin Wang, 2010. "Gambler's fallacy, hot hand belief, and the time of patterns," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 124-132, April.
    10. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2014. "A Cold Shower for the Hot Hand Fallacy," Working Papers 518, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    11. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2017. "A test of the gambler’s and hot hand fallacies in farmers’ weather and market predictions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Qingxia Kong & Georg D. Granic & Nicolas S. Lambert & Chung Piaw Teo, 2020. "Judgment Error in Lottery Play: When the Hot Hand Meets the Gambler’s Fallacy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 844-862, February.
    14. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2015. "Game, set, and match: Do women and men perform differently in competitive situations?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 96-108.
    15. Sam Gijsen & Miro Grundei & Robert T Lange & Dirk Ostwald & Felix Blankenburg, 2021. "Neural surprise in somatosensory Bayesian learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-36, February.
    16. Daniel L. Chen & Tobias J. Moskowitz & Kelly Shue, 2016. "Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(3), pages 1181-1242.
    17. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2019. "Surprised by the Hot Hand Fallacy? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers," Papers 1902.01265, arXiv.org.
    18. Miller, Joshua B. & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2021. "Is it a fallacy to believe in the hot hand in the NBA three-point contest?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:124-132 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "A Visible (Hot) Hand? Expert Players Bet on the Hot Hand and Win," OSF Preprints sd32u, Center for Open Science.

    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:pcbi00:1006707. 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.