4.6 Review

Neural chronometry and coherency across speed-accuracy demands reveal lack of homomorphism between computational and neural mechanisms of evidence accumulation

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0071

关键词

speed - accuracy trade-off; perceptual decision-making; visual attention; visual search; computational models; frontal eye field

类别

资金

  1. E. Bronson Ingram Chair in Neuroscience
  2. [F32-EY019851]
  3. [R01-EY08890]
  4. [P30-EY08126]
  5. [P30-HD015052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stochastic accumulation framework provides a mechanistic, quantitative account of perceptual decision-making and how task performance changes with experimental manipulations. Importantly, it provides an elegant account of the speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT), which has long been the litmus test for decision models, and also mimics the activity of single neurons in several key respects. Recently, we developed a paradigm whereby macaque monkeys trade speed for accuracy on cue during visual search task. Single-unit activity in frontal eye field (FEF) was not homomorphic with the architecture of models, demonstrating that stochastic accumulators are an incomplete description of neural activity under SAT. This paper summarizes and extends this work, further demonstrating that the SAT leads to extensive, widespread changes in brain activity never before predicted. We will begin by reviewing our recently published work that establishes how spiking activity in FEF accomplishes SAT. Next, we provide two important extensions of this work. First, we report a new chronometric analysis suggesting that increases in perceptual gain with speed stress are evident in FEF synaptic input, implicating afferent sensory-processing sources. Second, we report a new analysis demonstrating selective influence of SAT on frequency coupling between FEF neurons and local field potentials. None of these observations correspond to the mechanics of current accumulator models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据