Resource-rational account of sequential effects in human prediction.
Resource-rational account of sequential effects in human prediction.
复制标题
DOI：
10.7554/elife.81256
复制
发表时间：
2024-01-15
期刊：
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Azeredo da Silveira R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Prat-Carrabin A;Meyniel F;Azeredo da Silveira R
大量文献报道了当人类根据随机的刺激序列进行预测时观察到的“顺序效应”。这样的顺序效应代表着偏离了最优的贝叶斯过程。一种重要的解释认为，人类适应了不断变化的环境，并错误地认为环境是不稳定的，即使后者是静态的。因此，他们的预测会随着时间的推移而波动。我们提出了一种不同的解释，认为次优和波动的预测是由认知限制(或成本)造成的，但在这种情况下，人类的行为是理性的。我们设计了一个代价高昂的推理框架，在其中我们开发了两类模型，根据所起作用的约束的性质而有所不同：在一种情况下，信念的精确度是以代价为代价的，导致对过去观察的指数遗忘，而在另一种情况下，具有高预测能力的信念受到青睐。为了将模型预测与人类行为进行比较，我们执行了一项使用二进制随机刺激的预测任务，概率范围从0.05到0.95。虽然在这项任务中，环境是静态的，贝叶斯信念是一致的，但受试者的预测是波动的，并偏向于最近的刺激历史。这两类模型都捕捉到了这种“吸引效应”，但它们对高阶效应的描述有所不同。只有精确度-成本模型再现了在数据中观察到的“排斥效应”，即预测偏离了更远的试验中提出的刺激。我们的实验结果揭示了序列效应中的系统调制，这是我们的理论方法在认知约束下的合理性解释。
An abundant literature reports on ‘sequential effects’ observed when humans make predictions on the basis of stochastic sequences of stimuli. Such sequential effects represent departures from an optimal, Bayesian process. A prominent explanation posits that humans are adapted to changing environments, and erroneously assume non-stationarity of the environment, even if the latter is static. As a result, their predictions fluctuate over time. We propose a different explanation in which sub-optimal and fluctuating predictions result from cognitive constraints (or costs), under which humans however behave rationally. We devise a framework of costly inference, in which we develop two classes of models that differ by the nature of the constraints at play: in one case the precision of beliefs comes at a cost, resulting in an exponential forgetting of past observations, while in the other beliefs with high predictive power are favored. To compare model predictions to human behavior, we carry out a prediction task that uses binary random stimuli, with probabilities ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. Although in this task the environment is static and the Bayesian belief converges, subjects’ predictions fluctuate and are biased toward the recent stimulus history. Both classes of models capture this ‘attractive effect’, but they depart in their characterization of higher-order effects. Only the precision-cost model reproduces a ‘repulsive effect’, observed in the data, in which predictions are biased away from stimuli presented in more distant trials. Our experimental results reveal systematic modulations in sequential effects, which our theoretical approach accounts for in terms of rationality under cognitive constraints.
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Battaglia PW;Kersten D;Schrater PR
通讯作者：
Schrater PR
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Matsumori K;Koike Y;Matsumoto K
通讯作者：
Matsumoto K
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Gao J;Tortell R;McClelland JL
通讯作者：
McClelland JL