Close
This site uses cookies

By using this site, you consent to our use of cookies. You can view our terms and conditions for more information.

Degenerate boundaries for multiple-alternative decisions

Authors
Sophie-Anne Helen Baker
University of Bristol ~ Engineering Mathematics
Nathan Lepora
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Dr. Thom John Owen Griffith
University of Bristol ~ Engineering Maths
Abstract

Integration-to-threshold models of two-choice perceptual decision making have guided our understanding of human and animal behavior and neural processing. Although such models seem to extend naturally to multiple-choice decision making, consensus on a normative framework has yet to emerge, and hence the implications of threshold characteristics for multiple choices have only been partially explored. Here we consider sequential Bayesian inference and a conceptualisation of decision making as a particle diffusing in n-dimensions. We show by simulation that, within a parameterised subset of time-independent boundaries, the optimal decision boundaries comprise a degenerate family of nonlinear structures that jointly depend on the state of multiple accumulators and speed-accuracy trade-offs. This degeneracy is contrary to current 2-choice results where there is a single optimal threshold. Such boundaries support both stationary and collapsing thresholds as optimal strategies for decision-making, both of which result from stationary representations of nonlinear boundaries. Our findings point towards a normative theory of multiple-choice decision making, provide a characterisation of optimal decision thresholds under this framework, and inform the debate between stationary and dynamic decision boundaries for optimal decision making.

Tags

Keywords

Decision-making
urgency signal
perceptual
multiple-choice
thresholds
bayesian
Discussion
New

There is nothing here yet. Be the first to create a thread.

Cite this as:

Baker, S.-A., Lepora, N., & Griffith, T. Degenerate boundaries for multiple-alternative decisions. Via mathpsych.org/presentation/1234.