scholarly journals Rapid recalibration of temporal order judgements: Response bias accounts for contradictory results

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Keane ◽  
Nicholas S. Bland ◽  
Natasha Matthews ◽  
Timothy J Carroll ◽  
Guy Wallis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Response Bias ◽  
Sensory Processing ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Bias Effect ◽  
Temporal Recalibration ◽  
Temporal Asynchrony ◽  
Timing Perception ◽  
Single Presentation

AbstractRecent findings indicate that timing perception is systematically changed after only a single presentation of temporal asynchrony. This effect is known as rapid recalibration. In the synchrony judgement task, similar timing relationships in consecutive trials seem more synchronous (positive rapid recalibration; Van der Burg et al., 2013, 2015). Interestingly, the direction of this effect is reversed for temporal order judgements (negative rapid recalibration; Roseboom, 2019). We aimed to determine whether negative rapid recalibration of temporal order judgements (TOJs) reflects genuine rapid temporal recalibration, or a choice-repetition bias unrelated to timing perception. In our first experiment we found no evidence of rapid recalibration of TOJs, but positive rapid recalibration of associated confidence. This suggests that timing perception had rapidly recalibrated, but that this was undetectable in TOJs, plausibly because the positive recalibration effect was obfuscated by a large negative bias effect. In our second experiment, we dissociated participants’ previous TOJ from the most recently presented timing relationship, mitigating the choice-repetition bias effect, and found evidence of positive rapid recalibration of TOJs. We therefore conclude that timing perception is rapidly recalibrated positively for both synchrony and temporal order judgements. It remains unclear whether rapid recalibration occurs at the level of sensory processing, leading to similar effects in all subsequent judgements, or reflects a generalised decision-making strategy.

scholarly journals Serial dependence in timing perception

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warrick Roseboom
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Exposure ◽  
Sensory Adaptation ◽  
Serial Dependence ◽  
Single Exposure ◽  
Sensory Stimuli ◽  
After Effects ◽  
Temporal Recalibration ◽  
Timing Perception ◽  
Sensory History ◽  
Single Presentation

Recent sensory history affects subsequent experience. Behavioural results have demonstrated this effect in two forms: repeated exposure to the same sensory input produces negative after-effects wherein sensory stimuli like that previously experienced are judged as less like the exposed stimulation, while singular exposures can produce positive after-effects wherein judgements are more like previously experienced stimulation. For timing perception, there is controversy regarding the influence of recent exposure - both singular and repeated exposure produce apparently negative after-effects - often referred to as temporal recalibration and rapid temporal recalibration, respectively. While negative after-effects have been found following repeated exposure for all timing tasks, following a single exposure, they have only been demonstrated using synchrony judgements (SJ). Here, we examine the influence of a single presentation – serial dependence for timing – for standard timing tasks: SJ, temporal order judgements (TOJ), and magnitude estimation judgements (MJ). We found that serial dependence produced apparently negative after-effects in SJ, but positive after-effects in TOJ and MJ. We propose that these findings, and those following repeated exposure, can be reconciled within a framework wherein negative after-effects occur at sensory layers, consistent with classical depictions of sensory adaptation, and Bayesian-like positive after-effects operating across different, higher, decision levels. These findings are consistent with the after-effects known from other perceptual dimensions and provide a general framework for interpreting positive (serial dependence) and negative (sensory adaptation) after-effects across different tasks.

Anecdotal Bias in Capital Allocation Depends on Anecdote Similarity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shir Dekel ◽  
Micah Goldwater ◽  
Dan Lovallo ◽  
Bruce Burns
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Capital Allocation ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Target Problem ◽  
Bias Effect ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Statistical Measures ◽  
Allocation Decisions

Previous research found that anecdotes are more persuasive than statistical data—the anecdotal bias effect. Separate research found that anecdotes that are similar to a target problem are more influential on decision-making than dissimilar anecdotes. Further, previous investigations on anecdotal bias primarily focused on medical decision-making with very little focus on business decision-making. Therefore, we investigated the effect of anecdote similarity on anecdotal bias in capital allocation decisions. Participants were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget between two business projects. One of the projects (the target project) was clearly superior in terms of the provided statistical measures, but some of the participants also saw a description of a project with a conflicting outcome (the anecdotal project). This anecdotal project was always from the same industry as the target project. The anecdote description, however, either contained substantive connections to the target or not. Further, the anecdote conflicted with the statistical measures because it was either successful (positive anecdote) or unsuccessful (negative anecdote). The results showed that participants’ decisions were influenced by anecdotes only when they believed that they were actually relevant to the target project. Further, they still incorporated the statistical measures into their decision. This was found for both positive and negative anecdotes. Further, participants were given information about the way that the anecdotes were sampled that suggested that the statistical information should have been used in all cases. Participants did not use this information in their decisions and still showed an anecdotal bias effect. Therefore, people seem to appropriately use anecdotes based on their relevance, but do not understand the implications of certain statistical concepts.

scholarly journals Response bias reflects individual differences in sensory encoding

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dobromir Rahnev
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Response Bias ◽  
Stimulus Category ◽  
Optimal Criterion ◽  
Sensory Encoding ◽  
Choice Tasks ◽  
Subject Difference

Humans exhibit substantial biases in their decision making even in simple 2-choice tasks but the origin of these biases remains unclear. We hypothesized that one source of bias could be individual differences in sensory encoding. Specifically, if one stimulus category gives rise to an internal evidence distribution with higher variability, then responses should optimally be biased against that stimulus category. Therefore, response bias may reflect a previously unappreciated subject-to-subject difference in the shape of the internal evidence distributions. We tested this possibility by analyzing data from three different 2-choice tasks (N = 443, 443, 498). We found that, for all three tasks, response bias moved in the direction of the optimal criterion determined by each subject’s idiosyncratic internal evidence variability. These results demonstrate that seemingly random variations in response bias can be driven by individual differences in sensory encoding and are thus partly explained by normative strategies.

scholarly journals Disentangling the Relationship between Physician and Organizational Performance: A Signal Detection Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 746-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Kostopoulou ◽  
Martine Nurek ◽  
Brendan C. Delaney
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Signal Detection ◽  
Organizational Performance ◽  
Response Bias ◽  
Mediation Model ◽  
Urgent Referral ◽  
Detection Approach ◽  
Referral Decision ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Stable Feature

Background. In previous research, we employed a signal detection approach to measure the performance of general practitioners (GPs) when deciding about urgent referral for suspected lung cancer. We also explored associations between provider and organizational performance. We found that GPs from practices with higher referral positive predictive value (PPV; chance of referrals identifying cancer) were more reluctant to refer than those from practices with lower PPV. Here, we test the generalizability of our findings to a different cancer. Methods. A total of 252 GPs responded to 48 vignettes describing patients with possible colorectal cancer. For each vignette, respondents decided whether urgent referral to a specialist was needed. They then completed the 8-item Stress from Uncertainty scale. We measured GPs’ discrimination ( d′) and response bias (criterion; c) and their associations with organizational performance and GP demographics. We also measured correlations of d′ and c between the 2 studies for the 165 GPs who participated in both. Results. As in the lung study, organizational PPV was associated with response bias: in practices with higher PPV, GPs had higher criterion (b = 0.05 [0.03 to 0.07]; P < 0.001), that is, they were less inclined to refer. As in the lung study, female GPs were more inclined to refer than males (b = −0.17 [−0.30 to −0.105]; P = 0.005). In a mediation model, stress from uncertainty did not explain the gender difference. Only response bias correlated between the 2 studies ( r = 0.39, P < 0.001). Conclusions. This study confirms our previous findings regarding the relationship between provider and organizational performance and strengthens the finding of gender differences in referral decision making. It also provides evidence that response bias is a relatively stable feature of GP referral decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document