↓ Skip to main content

Persistency of Priors-Induced Bias in Decision Behavior and the fMRI Signal

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Persistency of Priors-Induced Bias in Decision Behavior and the fMRI Signal
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2011.00029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen A. Hansen, Sarah F. Hillenbrand, Leslie G. Ungerleider

Abstract

It is well known that people take advantage of prior knowledge to bias decisions. To investigate this phenomenon behaviorally and in the brain, we acquired fMRI data while human subjects viewed ambiguous abstract shapes and decided whether a shape was of Category A (smoother) or B (bumpier). The decision was made in the context of one of two prior knowledge cues, 80/20 and 50/50. The 80/20 cue indicated that upcoming shapes had an 80% probability of being of one category, e.g., B, and a 20% probability of being of the other. The 50/50 cue indicated that upcoming shapes had an equal probability of being of either category. The ideal observer would bias decisions in favor of the indicated alternative at 80/20 and show zero bias at 50/50. We found that subjects did bias their decisions in the predicted direction at 80/20 but did not show zero bias at 50/50. Instead, at 50/50 the subjects retained biases of the same sign as their 80/20 biases, though of diminished magnitude. The signature of a persistent though diminished bias at 50/50 was also evident in fMRI data from frontal and parietal regions previously implicated in decision-making. As a control, we acquired fMRI data from naïve subjects who experienced only the 50/50 stimulus distributions during both the pre-scan training and the fMRI experiment. The behavioral and fMRI data from the naïve subjects reflected decision biases closer to those of the ideal observer than those of the prior knowledge subjects at 50/50. The results indicate that practice making decisions in the context of non-equal prior probabilities biases decisions made later when prior probabilities are equal. This finding may be related to the "anchoring and adjustment" strategy described in the psychology, economics, and marketing literatures, in which subjects adjust a first approximation response - the "anchor" - based on additional information, typically applying insufficient adjustment relative to the ideal observer.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 13%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 40 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 12 25%
Professor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 17%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 3 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,065
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,794
of 190,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#52
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.