ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Prior probability biases perceptual choices by modulating the accumulation rate, rather than the baseline, of decision evidence.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Type-1 and type-2 decisions feature computational noise of similar magnitude.Communications psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prior probability of an upcoming stimulus has been shown to influence the formation of perceptual decisions. Computationally, these effects have typically been attributed to changes in the starting point (i.e., baseline) of evidence accumulation in sequential sampling models. More recently, it has also been proposed that prior probability might additionally lead to changes in the rate of evidence accumulation. Here, we introduce a neurally-informed behavioural modelling approach to understand whether prior probability influences the starting point, the rate of evidence accumulation or both. To this end, we employ a well-established visual object categorisation task for which two neural components underpinning participants' choices have been characterised using single-trial analysis of the electroencephalogram. These components are reliable measures of trial-by-trial variability in the quality of the relevant decision evidence, which we use to constrain the estimation of a hierarchical drift diffusion model of perceptual choice. We find that, unlike previous computational accounts, constraining the model with the endogenous variability in the relevant decision evidence results in prior probability effects being explained primarily by changes in the rate of evidence accumulation rather than changes in the starting point or a combination of both. Ultimately, our neurally-informed modelling approach helps disambiguate the mechanistic effect of prior probability on perceptual decision formation, suggesting that prior probability biases primarily the interpretation of sensory evidence towards the most likely stimulus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.