Cited by 229Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Mice alternate between discrete strategies during perceptual decision-making

Open access
Ashwood, Zoe C., Roy, Nicholas A., Stone, Iris R., The International Brain Laboratory, Urai, Anne E., Churchland, Anne K., Pouget, Alexandre, Pillow, Jonathan W.·2022·Nature Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Classical models of perceptual decision-making assume that subjects use a single, consistent strategy to form decisions, or that decision-making strategies evolve slowly over time. Here we present new analyses suggesting that this common view is incorrect. We analyzed data from mouse and human decision-making experiments and found that choice behavior relies on an interplay among multiple interleaved strategies. These strategies, characterized by states in a hidden Markov model, persist for tens to hundreds of trials before switching, and often switch multiple times within a session. The identified decision-making strategies were highly consistent across mice and comprised a single 'engaged' state, in which decisions relied heavily on the sensory stimulus, and several biased states in which errors frequently occurred. These results provide a powerful alternate explanation for 'lapses' often observed in rodent behavioral experiments, and suggest that standard measures of performance mask the presence of major changes in strategy across trials.

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 · 10.1038/s41593-021-01007-z

Cites

68 of 68 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [5]Sharma A, Johnson R, Engert F & Linderman S in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (eds Bengio S) 10919– 10930 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2018). http://papers.nips.cc/paper/8289-point-process-latent-variable-models-of-larval-zebrafish-behavior.pdf (2020).
  2. [9]Green DM & Swets JA Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Wiley New York, 1966).
  3. [19]International Brain Laboratory, T. A standardized and reproducible method to measure decision-making in mice. en. bioRxiv, 2020.01.17.909838. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.17.909838v2 (2020) (Jan. 2020). · DOI
  4. [45]Zoltowski D, Pillow J & Linderman S A general recurrent state space framework for modeling neural dynamics during decision-making en. in International Conference on Machine Learning ISSN: 2640–3498 (PMLR, Nov. 2020), 11680– 11691. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/zoltowski20a.html (2021).
  5. [47]Bolkan SS Strong and opponent contributions of dorsomedial striatal pathways to behavior depends on cognitive demands and task strategy. bioRxiv. Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/25/2021.07.23.453573.full.pdf. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/25/2021.07.23.453573 (2021).
  6. [70]Salakhutdinov R, Roweis ST & Ghahramani Z Optimization with EM and expectation-conjugate-gradient in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-03) (2003), 672– 679.
  7. [71]International Brain Laboratory, T. Data architecture for a large-scale neuroscience collaboration. bioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/02/23/827873 (2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashwood, Z. C., Roy, N. A., Stone, I. R., Laboratory, T. I. B., Urai, A. E., Churchland, A. K., Pouget, A., & Pillow, J. W.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Ashwood, Zoe C.
  • Pillow, Jonathan W.
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2022-02
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
201-212
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W4221108904
Cited by
229
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
23.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Simons Foundation (SCGB AWD543027)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
perceptual decision making, decision strategies, strategy switching, hidden Markov models, mouse behavior, human decision-making, model-based analysis, cross-species comparison
MeSH terms
Animals, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Mice

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