Observing the observer (I): meta-bayesian models of learning and decision-making
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we present a generic approach that can be used to infer how subjects make optimal decisions under uncertainty. This approach induces a distinction between a subject's perceptual model, which underlies the representation of a hidden "state of affairs" and a response model, which predicts the ensuing behavioural (or neurophysiological) responses to those inputs. We start with the premise that subjects continuously update a probabilistic representation of the causes of their sensory inputs to optimise their behaviour. In addition, subjects have preferences or goals that guide decisions about actions given the above uncertain representation of these hidden causes or state of affairs. From a Bayesian decision theoretic perspective, uncertain representations are so-called "posterior" beliefs, which are influenced by subjective "prior" beliefs. Preferences and goals are encoded through a "loss" (or "utility") function, which measures the cost incurred by making any admissible decision for any given (hidden) state of affair. By assuming that subjects make optimal decisions on the basis of updated (posterior) beliefs and utility (loss) functions, one can evaluate the likelihood of observed behaviour. Critically, this enables one to "observe the observer", i.e. identify (context- or subject-dependent) prior beliefs and utility-functions using psychophysical or neurophysiological measures. In this paper, we describe the main theoretical components of this meta-Bayesian approach (i.e. a Bayesian treatment of Bayesian decision theoretic predictions). In a companion paper ('Observing the observer (II): deciding when to decide'), we describe a concrete implementation of it and demonstrate its utility by applying it to simulated and real reaction time data from an associative learning task.
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
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?
Bayesian decision theory identifies an optimal action as one that maximizes expected utility, where expected outcomes are weighted by their relative uncertainty.
“One framework to address this challenge is Bayesian decision theory (Körding, 2007; Dayan and Daw, 2008; Daunizeau et al., 2010). In a nutshell, this identifies an optimal action as one that maximizes the “expected utility” (where “expected” refers to a weighted average; i.e., the predicted outcomes are weighted by their relative uncertainty).”
From Allostatic Self-efficacy: A Metacognitive Theory of Dyshomeostasis-Induced Fatigue and Depression (2016) · cites this paper as Daunizeau et al., 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 167
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [41]Ramachandran D Amir E 2007 Bayeisan inverse reinforcement learning. Proc Conf. IJCAI-07
- Authors
- Daunizeau, J., den Ouden, H. E. M., Pessiglione, M., Kiebel, S. J., Stephan, K. E., & Friston, K. J.
- Affiliations
- Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (FR)
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2010-12-14
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e15554
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3001878
- OpenAlex
- W2169356885
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (088130)
- Universität Zürich
- SystemsX.ch
- 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 › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- Bayesian decision theory, prior beliefs, utility functions, perceptual models, response model, associative learning, reaction time, psychophysics, neurophysiology
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Decision Making, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Learning, Models, Theoretical, Perception, Models, Statistical, Observer Variation
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