Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports

PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Nov 13;14(11):e1006572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006572. eCollection 2018 Nov.

Abstract

Humans can meaningfully report their confidence in a perceptual or cognitive decision. It is widely believed that these reports reflect the Bayesian probability that the decision is correct, but this hypothesis has not been rigorously tested against non-Bayesian alternatives. We use two perceptual categorization tasks in which Bayesian confidence reporting requires subjects to take sensory uncertainty into account in a specific way. We find that subjects do take sensory uncertainty into account when reporting confidence, suggesting that brain areas involved in reporting confidence can access low-level representations of sensory uncertainty, a prerequisite of Bayesian inference. However, behavior is not fully consistent with the Bayesian hypothesis and is better described by simple heuristic models that use uncertainty in a non-Bayesian way. Both conclusions are robust to changes in the uncertainty manipulation, task, response modality, model comparison metric, and additional flexibility in the Bayesian model. Our results suggest that adhering to a rational account of confidence behavior may require incorporating implementational constraints.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Bayes Theorem*
  • Behavior
  • Decision Making*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Models, Statistical
  • Normal Distribution
  • Observer Variation*
  • Poisson Distribution
  • Probability
  • Uncertainty
  • Young Adult