Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception

Luigi Acerbi, Kalpana Dokka, Dora Angelaki, Wei Ji Ma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The precision of multisensory perception improves when cues arising from the same cause are integrated, such as visual and vestibular heading cues for an observer moving through a stationary environment. In order to determine how the cues should be processed, the brain must infer the causal relationship underlying the multisensory cues. In heading perception, however, it is unclear whether observers follow the Bayesian strategy, a simpler non-Bayesian heuristic, or even perform causal inference at all. We developed an efficient and robust computational framework to perform Bayesian model comparison of causal inference strategies, which incorporates a number of alternative assumptions about the observers. With this framework, we investigated whether human observers’ performance in an explicit cause attribution and an implicit heading discrimination task can be modeled as a causal inference process. In the explicit causal inference task, all subjects accounted for cue disparity when reporting judgments of common cause, although not necessarily all in a Bayesian fashion. By contrast, but in agreement with previous findings, data from the heading discrimination task only could not rule out that several of the same observers were adopting a forced-fusion strategy, whereby cues are integrated regardless of disparity. Only when we combined evidence from both tasks we were able to rule out forced-fusion in the heading discrimination task. Crucially, findings were robust across a number of variants of models and analyses. Our results demonstrate that our proposed computational framework allows researchers to ask complex questions within a rigorous Bayesian framework that accounts for parameter and model uncertainty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere1006110
JournalPLoS Computational Biology
Volume14
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Causal Inference
heading
Cues
Observer
Discrimination
Fusion reactions
heuristics
Fusion
brain
Brain
parameter uncertainty
model uncertainty
Model Comparison
Model Uncertainty
Parameter Uncertainty
Bayesian Model
researchers
Uncertainty
Strategy
Perception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Ecology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Genetics
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Computational Theory and Mathematics

Cite this

Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception. / Acerbi, Luigi; Dokka, Kalpana; Angelaki, Dora; Ma, Wei Ji.

In: PLoS Computational Biology, Vol. 14, No. 7, e1006110, 01.07.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d27775d65f034b6fa5e75b93df4e3be2,
title = "Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception",
abstract = "The precision of multisensory perception improves when cues arising from the same cause are integrated, such as visual and vestibular heading cues for an observer moving through a stationary environment. In order to determine how the cues should be processed, the brain must infer the causal relationship underlying the multisensory cues. In heading perception, however, it is unclear whether observers follow the Bayesian strategy, a simpler non-Bayesian heuristic, or even perform causal inference at all. We developed an efficient and robust computational framework to perform Bayesian model comparison of causal inference strategies, which incorporates a number of alternative assumptions about the observers. With this framework, we investigated whether human observers’ performance in an explicit cause attribution and an implicit heading discrimination task can be modeled as a causal inference process. In the explicit causal inference task, all subjects accounted for cue disparity when reporting judgments of common cause, although not necessarily all in a Bayesian fashion. By contrast, but in agreement with previous findings, data from the heading discrimination task only could not rule out that several of the same observers were adopting a forced-fusion strategy, whereby cues are integrated regardless of disparity. Only when we combined evidence from both tasks we were able to rule out forced-fusion in the heading discrimination task. Crucially, findings were robust across a number of variants of models and analyses. Our results demonstrate that our proposed computational framework allows researchers to ask complex questions within a rigorous Bayesian framework that accounts for parameter and model uncertainty.",
author = "Luigi Acerbi and Kalpana Dokka and Dora Angelaki and Ma, {Wei Ji}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006110",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "PLoS Computational Biology",
issn = "1553-734X",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception

AU - Acerbi, Luigi

AU - Dokka, Kalpana

AU - Angelaki, Dora

AU - Ma, Wei Ji

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - The precision of multisensory perception improves when cues arising from the same cause are integrated, such as visual and vestibular heading cues for an observer moving through a stationary environment. In order to determine how the cues should be processed, the brain must infer the causal relationship underlying the multisensory cues. In heading perception, however, it is unclear whether observers follow the Bayesian strategy, a simpler non-Bayesian heuristic, or even perform causal inference at all. We developed an efficient and robust computational framework to perform Bayesian model comparison of causal inference strategies, which incorporates a number of alternative assumptions about the observers. With this framework, we investigated whether human observers’ performance in an explicit cause attribution and an implicit heading discrimination task can be modeled as a causal inference process. In the explicit causal inference task, all subjects accounted for cue disparity when reporting judgments of common cause, although not necessarily all in a Bayesian fashion. By contrast, but in agreement with previous findings, data from the heading discrimination task only could not rule out that several of the same observers were adopting a forced-fusion strategy, whereby cues are integrated regardless of disparity. Only when we combined evidence from both tasks we were able to rule out forced-fusion in the heading discrimination task. Crucially, findings were robust across a number of variants of models and analyses. Our results demonstrate that our proposed computational framework allows researchers to ask complex questions within a rigorous Bayesian framework that accounts for parameter and model uncertainty.

AB - The precision of multisensory perception improves when cues arising from the same cause are integrated, such as visual and vestibular heading cues for an observer moving through a stationary environment. In order to determine how the cues should be processed, the brain must infer the causal relationship underlying the multisensory cues. In heading perception, however, it is unclear whether observers follow the Bayesian strategy, a simpler non-Bayesian heuristic, or even perform causal inference at all. We developed an efficient and robust computational framework to perform Bayesian model comparison of causal inference strategies, which incorporates a number of alternative assumptions about the observers. With this framework, we investigated whether human observers’ performance in an explicit cause attribution and an implicit heading discrimination task can be modeled as a causal inference process. In the explicit causal inference task, all subjects accounted for cue disparity when reporting judgments of common cause, although not necessarily all in a Bayesian fashion. By contrast, but in agreement with previous findings, data from the heading discrimination task only could not rule out that several of the same observers were adopting a forced-fusion strategy, whereby cues are integrated regardless of disparity. Only when we combined evidence from both tasks we were able to rule out forced-fusion in the heading discrimination task. Crucially, findings were robust across a number of variants of models and analyses. Our results demonstrate that our proposed computational framework allows researchers to ask complex questions within a rigorous Bayesian framework that accounts for parameter and model uncertainty.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050993902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050993902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006110

DO - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006110

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - PLoS Computational Biology

JF - PLoS Computational Biology

SN - 1553-734X

IS - 7

M1 - e1006110

ER -