Contradictory behavioral biases result from the influence of past stimuli on perception.
Contradictory behavioral biases result from the influence of past stimuli on perception.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003948
复制
发表时间：
2014-12
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Ahissar M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Raviv O;Lieder I;Loewenstein Y;Ahissar M
诸如无明显原因地偏好特定反应之类的偏见是心理物理学的一个组成部分。这种偏见已经在常见的两种选择强制选择（2AFC）实验中得到了报道，其中参与者被要求比较两个连续呈现的刺激。然而，这些偏见背后的原理在很大程度上是未知的，之前的研究通常使用临时解释来解释它们。在这里，我们利用两种标准协议来考虑人类在 2AFC 音调频率辨别任务中的表现。在这两种方案中，每次试验都包含参考刺激。在一个（参考较低协议）中，参考刺激的频率始终低于比较刺激的频率，而在另一种（参考协议）中，参考刺激的频率低于或高于比较刺激的频率。我们发现显着的区间偏差。也就是说，当参考值处于特定区间时，参与者表现得更好。令人惊讶的是，两个实验中的偏差是相反的：当参考位于参考协议中的第一个区间时，性能更好，但当参考位于参考较低协议中的第二个区间时，性能更好。这种不一致反驳了先前对间隔偏差的解释，并且在考虑实验统计数据时得到了解决。将感知视为感官输入与实验过程中积累的先验知识的结合，在定性和定量上解释了看似矛盾的偏差。这个解释的成功意味着，即使是简单的辨别也反映了感觉限制、记忆限制和利用刺激统计的能力的组合。在这项研究中，我们解释了先前报道的两种选择歧视实验中尚未解释的偏见，其中参与者被要求比较两个连续呈现的刺激。在此类实验中，当重复参考刺激处于特定间隔（第一或第二）时，性能通常会更好。然而，“偏好的”间隔因研究而异，具体取决于实验方案看似微小的细节。我们表明，这种不一致可以完全解释为先前试验中刺激的残余影响，并解释了为什么不同的实验方案会产生不同的结果。这些发现表明，即使在最初是为了消除先前试验的影响而开发的两种选择程序中，参与者利用实验刺激统计数据的能力也会系统地影响表现，这表明感官过程不能孤立地或“断章取义”地进行研究：即使在最简单的歧视中，它们也涉及影响参与者表现的复杂统计学习。
Biases such as the preference of a particular response for no obvious reason, are an integral part of psychophysics. Such biases have been reported in the common two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) experiments, where participants are instructed to compare two consecutively presented stimuli. However, the principles underlying these biases are largely unknown and previous studies have typically used ad-hoc explanations to account for them. Here we consider human performance in the 2AFC tone frequency discrimination task, utilizing two standard protocols. In both protocols, each trial contains a reference stimulus. In one (Reference-Lower protocol), the frequency of the reference stimulus is always lower than that of the comparison stimulus, whereas in the other (Reference protocol), the frequency of the reference stimulus is either lower or higher than that of the comparison stimulus. We find substantial interval biases. Namely, participants perform better when the reference is in a specific interval. Surprisingly, the biases in the two experiments are opposite: performance is better when the reference is in the first interval in the Reference protocol, but is better when the reference is second in the Reference-Lower protocol. This inconsistency refutes previous accounts of the interval bias, and is resolved when experiments statistics is considered. Viewing perception as incorporation of sensory input with prior knowledge accumulated during the experiment accounts for the seemingly contradictory biases both qualitatively and quantitatively. The success of this account implies that even simple discriminations reflect a combination of sensory limitations, memory limitations, and the ability to utilize stimuli statistics. In this study we explain a previously reported yet unexplained bias in two-alternative discrimination experiments, in which participants are instructed to compare two consecutively presented stimuli. In such experiments, performance is often better when the repeating reference stimulus is in a specific interval, either first or second. However, the "favored" interval differs across studies, depending on seemingly minute details of the experimental protocol. We show that this inconsistency is fully explained as the residual influence of stimuli presented in previous trials, and explain why different experimental protocols yield different results. These findings show that even in the two-alternative procedure, originally developed to eliminate the impact of previous trials, performance is systematically affected by participants' ability to utilize the experiment's statistics of the stimuli, suggesting that sensory processes cannot be studied in isolation, or "out of context": even in the simplest discriminations they involve complex statistical learning that affects participants' performance.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
WOLFSON, SS;LANDY, MS
通讯作者：
LANDY, MS
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Ayala YA;Malmierca MS
通讯作者：
Malmierca MS
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
HARRIS, JD
通讯作者：
HARRIS, JD
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Morgan, MJ;Watamaniuk, SNJ;McKee, SP
通讯作者：
McKee, SP
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Oliphant, Travis E.
通讯作者：
Oliphant, Travis E.