Cited by 16Bayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCognitive Science and Education Research

Human inference in changing environments with temporal structure.

Open access
Prat-Carrabin, Arthur, Wilson, Robert C., Cohen, Jonathan D., Azeredo da Silveira, Rava·2021·Psychological Review

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

To make informed decisions in natural environments that change over time, humans must update their beliefs as new observations are gathered. Studies exploring human inference as a dynamical process that unfolds in time have focused on situations in which the statistics of observations are history-independent. Yet, temporal structure is everywhere in nature and yields history-dependent observations. Do humans modify their inference processes depending on the latent temporal statistics of their observations? We investigate this question experimentally and theoretically using a change-point inference task. We show that humans adapt their inference process to fine aspects of the temporal structure in the statistics of stimuli. As such, humans behave qualitatively in a Bayesian fashion but, quantitatively, deviate away from optimality. Perhaps more importantly, humans behave suboptimally in that their responses are not deterministic, but variable. We show that this variability itself is modulated by the temporal statistics of stimuli. To elucidate the cognitive algorithm that yields this behavior, we investigate a broad array of existing and new models that characterize different sources of suboptimal deviations away from Bayesian inference. While models with "output noise" that corrupts the response-selection process are natural candidates, human behavior is best described by sampling-based inference models, in which the main ingredient is a compressed approximation of the posterior, represented through a modest set of random samples and updated over time. This result comes to complement a growing literature on sample-based representation and learning in humans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/rev0000276

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Discontinuous phase transitions in information-processing strategies have also been reported within the information bottleneck framework.

    “Discontinuous phase transitions in informationprocessing strategies have also been reported within the information bottleneck framework [38-42].”

    From Theoretical Analysis of Resource-Induced Phase Transitions in Estimation Strategies (2026) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Summary (p. 23) reports that subjects adapt their learning rate to temporal structure, and the rational-inattention discussion (p. 26) describes an information-based model. Neither passage reports a discontinuous phase transition in information-processing strategies within the information bottleneck framework. Searches for “information bottleneck” and “discontinuous phase transition” found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

20 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [27][27] L. A. Nunes Amaral, D. J. Bezerra Soares, L. R. da Silva, L. S. Lucena, M. Saito, H. Kumano, N. Aoyagi, and Y. Yamamoto. Power law temporal auto-correlations in day-long records of human physical activity. Europhys. Lett. , 66(3):448-454, 2004. -
  2. [47][47] Reza Shadmehr. Computational Approaches to Motor Control. In Encyclopedia of Neuroscience , volume 3, pages 9-17. 2009. -
  3. [49][49] Sangtae Ahn and J.a. Fessler. Standard Errors of Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation Estimators. EECS Department, University of Michigan , pages 1-2, 2003. -
  4. [52][52] Arnaud Doucet and Adam M Johansen. A Tutorial on Particle Filtering and Smoothing: Fifteen years later. In D. Crisan and B. Rozovsky, editors, The Oxford Handbook of Nonlinear Filtering , pages 1-39. Oxford University Press, 2008. -
  5. [54][54] Edward Vul. Sampling in human cognition - Chapter 1. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering , 72(4-B):2471, 2011. -
  6. [66][66] Alan A. Stocker and Eero P. Simoncelli. A Bayesian Model of Conditioned Perception. Advances in neural information processing systems , 20(May):1409-1416, 2008. -
  7. [67][67] Thomas L. Griffiths and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. Predicting the future as Bayesian inference: People combine prior knowledge with observations when estimating duration and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 140(4):725-743, 2011. -
  8. [69][69] Roger Levy, Florencia Reali, and Thomas L. Griffiths. Modeling the effects of memory on human online sentence processing with particle filters. Proceedings of NIPS 2008 , pages 1-8, 2008. -
  9. [70][70] Nathaniel D Daw and Aaron C Courville. The pigeon as particle filter. Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 369-376, 2008. -
  10. [72][72] Samuel J. Gershman and Jeffrey M. Beck. Complex Probabilistic Inference : From Cognition to Neural Computation. In Computational Models of Brain and Behavior , pages 1-17. 2016. -
  11. [74][74] R J Herrnstein. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 4(3):267-272, jul 1961. -
  12. [81][81] Christopher A. Sims. Rational Inattention and Monetary Economics - Handbook of Monetary Economics. Handbook of Monetary Economics , 3(2007):155-181, 2011. -
  13. [84][84] Eric Schulz, Emmanouil Konstantinidis, and Maarten Speekenbrink. Learning and decisions in contextual multi-armed bandit tasks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society , 1:2122-2127, 2015. -
  14. [90][90] Alan A. Stocker and Eero P. Simoncelli. Sensory adaptation within a Bayesian framework for perception. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 18:1291-1298, 2006. -
  15. [91][91] Adam N. Sanborn, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Daniel J. Navarro. A More Rational Model of Categorization. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , pages 1-6, 2006. -
  16. [93][93] Edward Vul, Michael C Frank, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and George Alvarez. Explaining human multiple object tracking as resource-constrained approximate inference in a dynamic probabilistic model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 22:1-9, 2009. -
  17. [98][98] Patrik O Hoyer and Aapo Hyvärinen. Interpreting neural response variability as monte carlo sampling of the posterior. Advances in neural information processing systems , (1):293-300, 2003. -
  18. [100][100] L Shi and Thomas L. Griffiths. Neural implementation of hierarchical Bayesian inference by importance sampling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 , pages 16691677, 2009. -
  19. [101][101] Guillaume Hennequin, Laurence Aitchison, and Máté Lengyel. Fast Sampling-Based Inference in Balanced Neuronal Networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1-9, 2014. -
  20. [102][102] Cristina Savin and Sophie Denève. Spatio-temporal representations of uncertainty in spiking neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1-9, 2014. -
  21. [104][104] Jonathan W Peirce. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using psychopy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics , 2(10), 2009. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prat-Carrabin, A., Wilson, R. C., Cohen, J. D., & Azeredo da Silveira, R.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2021-10
Volume
128
Issue
5
Pages
879-912
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W3125960872
Cited by
16
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Centre national de la recherche scientifique
  • Princeton University
  • Weizmann Institute of Science
  • Fondation Pierre-Gilles de Gennes pour la Recherche
  • Region Ile de France
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-EQPX-29-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
human inference, temporal structure, change point detection, Bayesian inference, response variability, sampling-based inference, posterior approximation, belief updating, output noise, cognitive models
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Learning

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