Cited by 207Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integration

Perceptual Decision-Making as Probabilistic Inference by Neural Sampling

Open access
Haefner, Ralf M., Berkes, Pietro, Fiser, József·2016·Neuron

Abstract

We address two main challenges facing systems neuroscience today: understanding the nature and function of cortical feedback between sensory areas and of correlated variability. Starting from the old idea of perception as probabilistic inference, we show how to use knowledge of the psychophysical task to make testable predictions for the influence of feedback signals on early sensory representations. Applying our framework to a two-alternative forced choice task paradigm, we can explain multiple empirical findings that have been hard to account for by the traditional feedforward model of sensory processing, including the task dependence of neural response correlations and the diverging time courses of choice probabilities and psychophysical kernels. Our model makes new predictions and characterizes a component of correlated variability that represents task-related information rather than performance-degrading noise. It demonstrates a normative way to integrate sensory and cognitive components into physiologically testable models of perceptual decision-making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.020

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approximate inference algorithms such as sampling may explain cortical feedback signals and activity correlations.

    “As theories of brain computation, approximate inference algorithms such as sampling may explain cortical feedback signals and activity correlations97,108–110.”

    From Cognitive computational neuroscience (2018) · cites this paper as [109]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haefner, R. M., Berkes, P., & Fiser, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Brandeis University (US)
  • Central European University (AT)
Corresponding author
Haefner, Ralf M.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
90
Issue
3
Pages
649-660
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104922910
Cited by
207
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
14.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
perceptual decision making, probabilistic inference, cortical feedback, two-alternative forced choice, choice probabilities
MeSH terms
Cerebral Cortex, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Neurological, Perception, Psychomotor Performance, Sensory Receptor Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review