The DOI matches its Crossref record; 320 of the 320 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Suboptimality in perceptual decision making
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Human perceptual decisions are often described as optimal. Critics of this view have argued that claims of optimality are overly flexible and lack explanatory power. Meanwhile, advocates for optimality have countered that such criticisms single out a few selected papers. To elucidate the issue of optimality in perceptual decision making, we review the extensive literature on suboptimal performance in perceptual tasks. We discuss eight different classes of suboptimal perceptual decisions, including improper placement, maintenance, and adjustment of perceptual criteria; inadequate tradeoff between speed and accuracy; inappropriate confidence ratings; misweightings in cue combination; and findings related to various perceptual illusions and biases. In addition, we discuss conceptual shortcomings of a focus on optimality, such as definitional difficulties and the limited value of optimality claims in and of themselves. We therefore advocate that the field drop its emphasis on whether observed behavior is optimal and instead concentrate on building and testing detailed observer models that explain behavior across a wide range of tasks. To facilitate this transition, we compile the proposed hypotheses regarding the origins of suboptimal perceptual decisions reviewed here. We argue that verifying, rejecting, and expanding these explanations for suboptimal behavior – rather than assessing optimality per se – should be among the major goals of the science of perceptual decision making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“when behavioral data fail to conform to the predictions of Bayesian optimality, researchers frequently appeal to auxiliary assumptions—such as “suboptimal” priors, cognitive capacity limitations, or the use of approximation algorithms—to account for these deviations (Rahnev and Denison 2018; Sanborn and Chater 2016).”
From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Rahnev and Denison 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, alternative non-Bayesian models—grounded in heuristics, dynamical systems, or adaptation mechanisms—can often account for the same neural patterns with equal or even greater parsimony and explanatory clarity (Rahnev and Denison 2018).”
From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Rahnev and Denison 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In tightly controlled tasks where prior probabilities and likelihoods are explicitly defined, persistent deviations from Bayesian-optimal behavior—unexplainable by noise, heuristics, or approximation—would falsify normative claims (Rahnev and Denison 2018).”
From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Rahnev and Denison 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“More generally, different suboptimalities may coexist, and the same kind of computational constraints that affect first-order cognition are likely to affect the suboptimality of metacognition (Rahnev & Denison 2018).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Rahnev & Denison 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, the meaningfulness of a Bayes-optimal result is questionable [48] and the use of Bayesian modelling is disputed [49–53].”
From A model of cue integration as vector summation in the insect brain (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis
Berger, J. O. (1985) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4286-2 · Cited by 7,722
Rational choice and the structure of the environment.
Simon, H. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042769 · Cited by 5,919
Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415429a · Cited by 4,844
Visual attention: The past 25 years
Carrasco, M. (2011) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012 · Cited by 2,660
The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation
Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.10.007 · Cited by 2,588
Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning
Körding, K. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02169 · Cited by 2,004
Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.4.700 · Cited by 1,945
The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration
Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029 · Cited by 1,936
Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex
Yamins, D. L. K., Hong, H., Cadieu, C. F., Solomon, E. A., Seibert, D., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1403112111 · Cited by 1,924
Research works printed but not linked: 45
- Wohlgemuth, 1911, On the after-effect of seen movement
- 10.1167/10.7.213 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03199483 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1007-0214(11)70019-0 · DOI
- Osgood, 1953, Method and theory in experimental psychology
- Ramachandran, 1990, Vision: Coding and efficiency, 346
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387247.003.0002 · DOI
- Barlow, 1961, Sensory communication, 217
- Treisman, 1984, The setting and maintenance of criteria representing levels of confidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 119
- Wei, X.-X. & Stocker, A. A. (2013) Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 25 (proceedings from the conference, Neural Information Processing Systems 2012), ed. Pereira, F. , Burges, C. J. C. , Bottou, L. & Weinberger, K. Q. . Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/4489-efficient-coding-provides-a-direct-link-between-prior-and-likelihood-in-perceptual-bayesian-inference.
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387247.003.0001 · DOI
- Jaynes, 1957, Probability theory: The logic of science
- 10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.177 · DOI
- Cowan, 2005, Working memory capacity
- Sabra, 1989, The optics of Ibn Al-Haytham, Books I–III: On direct vision
- 10.7551/mitpress/1654.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62776-4 · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90013-R · DOI
- Barlow, 1990, Vision: Coding and efficiency, 363
- Dawes, 1980, Similarity and choice: Papers in honor of Clyde Coombs, 327
- 10.1037/a0025291 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387247.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0034736 · DOI
- Swets, 1961, Information theory: Proceedings of the fourth London symposium, 177
- 10.1121/1.1908504 · DOI
- 10.1016/0004-3702(90)90060-D · DOI
- 10.1037/h0028949 · DOI
- Fechner, 1860, Elemente der psychophysik
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-2076-1 · DOI
- Healy, 1981, Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 344
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0005 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387247.003.0008 · DOI
- Vickers, 1979, Decision processes in visual perception
- Luu, 2016, Choice-induced biases in perception, bioRxiv
- Simon, 1957, Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting, 99
- 10.1080/13506280143000638 · DOI
- Macmillan, 2005, Detection theory: A user's guide
- Turnbull, 1961, The correspondence of Isaac Newton. Vol. 3, 1688–1694
- Green, 1966, Signal detection theory and psychophysics
- Helmholtz, 1856, Treatise on physiological optics
- 10.1037/rev0000045 · DOI · Paper page
- Geisler, 2013, Optimal and non-optimal fixation selection in visual search, Perception ECVP Abstract, 42, 226
- Stocker, A. A. & Simoncelli, E. P. (2006b) Sensory adaptation within a Bayesian framework for perception. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 18 (proceedings from the conference, Neural Information Processing Systems 2005), ed. Weiss, Y. & Schölkopf, B. & Platt, J. C. . Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/book/advances-in-neural-information-processing-systems-18-2005.
- Maloney, 1989, Proceedings of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) 1119, Visual Communications and Image Processing IV, 1154
- Jastrow, 1892, American Journal of Psychology, 5, 214
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Border Between Seeing and Thinking
Block, N. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197622223.001.0001 · Cited by 367
Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis
Fleming, S. M. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425 · Cited by 256
Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning
Callaway, F., van Opheusden, B., Gul, S., Das, P., Krueger, P. M., Griffiths, T. L., & Lieder, F. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8 · Cited by 121
If perception is probabilistic, why does it not seem probabilistic?
Block, N. (2018) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0341 · Cited by 91
Consensus Goals in the Field of Visual Metacognition
Rahnev, D., Balsdon, T., Charles, L., de Gardelle, V., Denison, R., Desender, K., Faivre, N., Filevich, E., Fleming, S. M., Jehee, J., et al. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221075615 · Cited by 63
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rahnev, D., & Denison, R. N.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 41
- Pages
- e223-e223
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- PMC
- PMC6110994
- OpenAlex
- W2790916085
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 320
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 12
- FWCI
- 20.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Eye Institute (F32EY025533, T32EY007136)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- perceptual decision making, suboptimal performance, principle of optimality, speed-accuracy trade-off, confidence ratings, cue combination, perceptual illusions, perceptual bias, model observer
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
