Selective attention increases choice certainty in human decision making.

Choice certainty is a probabilistic estimate of past performance and expected outcome. In perceptual decisions the degree of confidence correlates closely with choice accuracy and reaction times, suggesting an intimate relationship to objective performance. Here we show that spatial and feature-based attention increase human subjects' certainty more than accuracy in visual motion discrimination tasks. Our findings demonstrate for the first time a dissociation of choice accuracy and certainty with a significantly stronger influence of voluntary top-down attention on subjective performance measures than on objective performance. These results reveal a so far unknown mechanism of the selection process implemented by attention and suggest a unique biological valence of choice certainty beyond a faithful reflection of the decision process

Metacognitive Confidence Increases with, but Does Not Determine, Visual Perceptual Learning.

While perceptual learning increases objective sensitivity, the effects on the constant interaction of the process of perception and its metacognitive evaluation have been rarely investigated. Visual perception has been described as a process of probabilistic inference featuring metacognitive evaluations of choice certainty. For visual motion perception in healthy, naive human subjects here we show that perceptual sensitivity and confidence in it increased with training. The metacognitive sensitivity-estimated from certainty ratings by a bias-free signal detection theoretic approach-in contrast, did not. Concomitant 3Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) was applied in compliance with previous findings on effective high-low cross-frequency coupling subserving signal detection. While perceptual accuracy and confidence in it improved with training, there were no statistically significant tACS effects. Neither metacognitive sensitivity in distinguishing between their own correct and incorrect stimulus classifications, nor decision confidence itself determined the subjects' visual perceptual learning. Improvements of objective performance and the metacognitive confidence in it were rather determined by the perceptual sensitivity at the outset of the experiment. Post-decision certainty in visual perceptual learning was neither independent of objective performance, nor requisite for changes in sensitivity, but rather covaried with objective performance. The exact functional role of metacognitive confidence in human visual perception has yet to be determined

Spatial attention: behavioral tasks and effects of attention on accuracy and certainty.

<p><b>A</b>, Timing of events for an example spatial attention trial. The test stimulus consisted of two RDKs presented simultaneously left and right of the fixation point (1.5 – 2s), level of motion coherence and direction of global motion (four alternatives) were modulated on a trial-by-trial basis. An arrow before stimulus presentation (0.5 – 1s) indicated which RDK covertly shift attention to, a second arrow after the stimulus (2.5 – 3s) instructed subjects which RDK they actually had to indicate the direction of coherent motion for. Valid cueing - as defined by congruent orientation of the attentional and the instructional cue - was applied in 80% of trials, see dark blue option. Invalid cueing (incongruent arrows, light blue option) was applied in the remaining 20% of trials. Subjects reported perceived motion direction with a first button press and decision certainty with either a second press of the same buttons using four predefined numerical ratings (SN) or of two of the buttons corresponding to a high (10) or low (1) wager (SW). For the separate wagering variation, wager feedback was given via a continuously updated point score adding or subtracting the chosen virtual bet. <b>B–I</b>, Percentage of correct responses or certainty index, respectively, vs. motion coherence for all subjects. Data points show the proportion of correct choices or the certainty index, respectively. Size of the points is scaled pursuant to the number of corresponding trials. Solid curves are logistic fits to the data using a Maximum Likelihood criterion. <i>**</i> tags p<0.01; <i>***</i> p<0.001 derived from model comparison statistics using Monte-Carlo simulations of the two respective fits, missing asterisk in h: no significant difference between fits. Spatial attention with numerical certainty ratings: B–E; spatial attention with certainty wager: F–I. B,F compare accuracy for valid and invalid cues. C,G compare certainty for valid and invalid cues. D,H compare accuracy and certainty for valid trials. E,I compare accuracy and certainty for invalid trials.</p

Feature-based attention: behavioral tasks and effects of attention on accuracy and certainty.

<p><b>A</b>, Timing of events for an example feature-based attention trial. The test stimulus consisted of two interlacing RDKs differing in color and was presented randomly left or right of the fixation point (1–1.5 s), modulation of the independent RDKs otherwise matched the spatial attention tasks. Color changes of the fixation point to red or green before (0.5–1 s) and after the presentation (1.5–2 s) of this test stimulus instructed subjects which dot elements to direct attention to and which to actually indicate the direction of global motion for. The other cueing and response modalities were identical to the spatial attention tasks. <b>B–I</b>, Percentage of correct responses or certainty index, respectively, vs. motion coherence for all subjects. Conventions are identical to the spatial attention tasks in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041136#pone-0041136-g001" target="_blank">Fig. 1</a>. <i>*</i> tags p<0.05; <i>***</i> p<0.001 derived from model comparison statistics using Monte-Carlo simulations of the two respective fits, missing asterisk in I: no significant difference between fits. Feature-based attention with numerical certainty ratings (FN): B–E, feature-based attention with certainty wager (FW): F–I. B, F compare accuracy for valid and invalid cues. C, G compare certainty for valid and invalid cues. D, H compare accuracy and certainty for valid trials. E, I compare accuracy and certainty for invalid trials.</p

Z-standardized certainty increases significantly more with attention than z-standardized accuracy if controlled for the overall success rate.

<p><b>A</b>, Mean accuracy for the group of valid cue trials next to the mean accuracy for invalid cues, all subjects. B, Δ z-values for accuracy and certainty for overlapping coherences of the attended and the unattended condition when overall perceptual success rate is the same for the two cueing conditions. A, <b>B</b>, means ± standard errors of the mean.</p