Drift–diffusion models for multiple-alternative forced-choice decision making
Tóm tắt
The canonical computational model for the cognitive process underlying two-alternative forced-choice decision making is the so-called drift–diffusion model (DDM). In this model, a decision variable keeps track of the integrated difference in sensory evidence for two competing alternatives. Here I extend the notion of a drift–diffusion process to multiple alternatives. The competition between n alternatives takes place in a linear subspace of
$n-1$
dimensions; that is, there are
$n-1$
decision variables, which are coupled through correlated noise sources. I derive the multiple-alternative DDM starting from a system of coupled, linear firing rate equations. I also show that a Bayesian sequential probability ratio test for multiple alternatives is, in fact, equivalent to these same linear DDMs, but with time-varying thresholds. If the original neuronal system is nonlinear, one can once again derive a model describing a lower-dimensional diffusion process. The dynamics of the nonlinear DDM can be recast as the motion of a particle on a potential, the general form of which is given analytically for an arbitrary number of alternatives.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Wald A. Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann Math Stat. 1945;16:117–86.
Ratcliff R. A theory memory retrieval. Psychol Rev. 1978;85:59–108.
Ratcliff R, McKoon G. The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 2008;20:873–922.
Shadlen MN, Kiani R. Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron. 2013;80:791–806.
Kira S, Yang T, Shadlen MN. A neural implementation of Wald’s sequential probability test. Neuron. 2015;84:861–73.
Roitman JD, Shadlen MN. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J Neurosci. 2002;22(21):9475–89.
Latimer KW, Yates JL, Meister MLR, Huk AC, Pillow JW. Single-trial spike trains in parietal cortex reveal discrete steps during decision making. Science. 2015;349:184–7.
Wang X-J. Pacemaker neurons for the theta rhythm and their synchronization in the septohippocampal reciprocal loop. J Neurophysiol. 2002;87:889–900.
Wong KF, Huk AC, Shadlen MN, Wang X-J. Neural circuit dynamics underlying accumulation of time-varying evidence during perceptual decision-making. Front Comput Neurosci. 2007:neuro.10.006.2007.
Churchland AK, Kiani R, Shadlen MN. Decision-making with multiple alternatives. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11:693–702.
Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen JD. The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol Rev. 2006;113(4):700–65.
Niwa M, Ditterich J. Perceptual decisions between multiple directions of visual motion. J Neurosci. 2008;28:4435–45.
McMillen T, Holmes P. The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives. J Math Psychol. 2006;50:30–57.
Baum CW, Veeravalli VV. A sequential procedure for multihypothesis testing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 1994;40:1996–2007.
Dragalin VP, Tertakovsky AG, Veeravalli VV. Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests—part I: asymptotic optimality. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 1999;45:2448–61.
Bogacz R, Gurney K. The basal ganglia and cortex implement optimal decision making between alternative options. Neural Comput. 2007;19:442–77.
Roxin A, Ledberg A. Neurobiological models of two-choice decision making can be reduced to a one-dimensional nonlinear diffusion equation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4:1000046.
Usher M, McClelland JL. The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol Rev. 2001;108:550–92.
Koulakov AA, Raghavachari S, Kepecs A, Lisman JE. Model for a robust neural integrator. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:775–82.
Goldman MS, Levine JH, Major G, Tank DW, Seung HS. Robust persistent neural activity in a model integrator with multiple hysteretic dendrites per neuron. Cereb Cortex. 2003;13:1185–95.
Hick WE. On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol. 1952;4:11–26.
Armitage P. Sequential analysis with more than two alternative hypotheses, and its relation to discriminant function analysis. J R Stat Soc, Ser B. 1950;12:137–44.
Bogacz R, Usher M, Zhang J, McClelland JL. Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B, Biol Sci. 2007;362:1655–70.
Shadlen MN, Newsome WT. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area lip) of the rhesus monkey. J Neurophysiol. 2001;86:1916–36.
Wiggins S. Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos. Berlin: Springer; 2003.
Ueltzhoeffer K, Armbruster-Genç DJN, Flebach CJ. Stochastic dynamics underlying cognitive stability and flexibility. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11:1004331.
Nguyen KP, Josić K, Kilpatrick ZP. Optimizing sequential decision in the drift–diffusion model. J Math Psychol. 2019;88:32–47.
Radillo AE, Veliz-Cuba A, Josić K, Kilpatrick ZP. Evidence accumulation and change rate inference in dynamic environments. Neural Comput. 2017;29:1561–610.
Tajima S, Drugowitsch J, Patel N, Pouget A. Optimal policy for multi-alternative decisions. 2019;biorxiv:595843.
Ratcliff R, van Zandt T, McKoon G. Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychol Rev. 1999;106:261–300.
Huk AC, Shadlen MN. Neural activity in macaque parietal cortex reflects temporal integration of visual motion signals during perceptual decision making. J Neurosci. 2005;25(45):10420–36.