Sustained effects of corrupted feedback on perceptual inference.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 04 2019
02 04 2019
Historique:
received:
18
09
2018
accepted:
18
03
2019
entrez:
4
4
2019
pubmed:
4
4
2019
medline:
4
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Feedback is central to most forms of learning, and its reliability is therefore critical. Here, we investigated the effects of corrupted, and hence unreliable, feedback on perceptual inference. Within the framework of Bayesian inference, we hypothesised that corrupting feedback in a demanding perceptual task would compromise sensory information processing and bias inference towards prior information if available. These hypotheses were examined by a simulation and in two behavioural experiments with visual detection (experiment 1) and discrimination (experiment 2) tasks. Both experiments consisted of two sessions comprising intervention runs with either corrupted or uncorrupted (correct) feedback, and pre- and post-intervention tests to assess the effects of feedback. In the tests alone, additional prior beliefs were induced through predictive auditory cues to assess sustained effects of feedback on the balance between sensory evidence and prior beliefs. Both experiments and the simulation showed the hypothesised decrease in performance and increased reliance on prior beliefs after corrupted but not uncorrupted feedback. Exploratory analyses indicated reduced confidence regarding perceptual decisions during delivery of corrupted feedback. Our results suggest that corrupted feedback on perceptual decisions leads to sustained changes in perceptual inference, characterised by a shift from sensory likelihood to prior beliefs when those are accessible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30940859
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41954-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-41954-z
pmc: PMC6445092
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5537Références
J Neurosci. 2011 Oct 19;31(42):14944-51
pubmed: 22016527
Psychiatry Res. 2014 Nov 30;219(3):631-7
pubmed: 25023370
Vision Res. 1999;39(25):4232-43
pubmed: 10755160
Elife. 2016 Mar 29;5:
pubmed: 27021283
Trends Neurosci. 2004 Dec;27(12):712-9
pubmed: 15541511
Perception. 1984;13(5):619-28
pubmed: 6535985
J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 Nov;9(6):788-98
pubmed: 23964600
Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:271-304
pubmed: 14744217
Front Psychol. 2012 Apr 02;3:96
pubmed: 22485102
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 May 19;367(1594):1310-21
pubmed: 22492749
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 May 31;10:263
pubmed: 27303285
Front Psychiatry. 2013 May 30;4:47
pubmed: 23750138
Vision Res. 2001 Mar;41(6):685-9
pubmed: 11248258
Science. 2008 Oct 3;322(5898):115-7
pubmed: 18832647
J Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Feb;28(2):261-74
pubmed: 26439265
Neuron. 2013 Oct 16;80(2):519-30
pubmed: 24139048
Eur J Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(7):1169-79
pubmed: 22487045
Vision Res. 1998 Jun;38(12):1861-81
pubmed: 9797963
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Jan;10(1):48-58
pubmed: 19050712
J Vis. 2010 Aug 27;10(10):29
pubmed: 20884494
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May 24;113(21):6059-64
pubmed: 27162349
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Jun;18(3):524-30
pubmed: 21416153
Nature. 2004 Jan 15;427(6971):244-7
pubmed: 14724638
Neuron. 2012 Jul 26;75(2):265-70
pubmed: 22841311
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014 Nov;15(11):745-56
pubmed: 25315388
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Aug;5(8):617-29
pubmed: 15263892
Cereb Cortex. 2016 Jan;26(1):118-130
pubmed: 25112281
Vision Res. 1997 Aug;37(15):2133-41
pubmed: 9327060
J Neurosci. 2013 Aug 21;33(34):13701-12
pubmed: 23966692
Front Integr Neurosci. 2012 Aug 13;6:58
pubmed: 22905024
J Vis. 2012 Mar 06;12(3):
pubmed: 22396463
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 May;19(5):285-93
pubmed: 25843543