CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 222Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A neural mechanism of speed-accuracy tradeoff in macaque area LIP

Open access
Hanks, Timothy, Kiani, Roozbeh, Shadlen, Michael N·2014·eLife
DOI 10.7554/elife.02260PMC PMC4054775
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Decision making often involves a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Previous studies indicate that neural activity in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) represents the gradual accumulation of evidence toward a threshold level, or evidence bound, which terminates the decision process. The level of this bound is hypothesized to mediate the speed-accuracy tradeoff. To test this, we recorded from LIP while monkeys performed a motion discrimination task in two speed-accuracy regimes. Surprisingly, the terminating threshold levels of neural activity were similar in both regimes. However, neurons recorded in the faster regime exhibited stronger evidence-independent activation from the beginning of decision formation, effectively reducing the evidence-dependent neural modulation needed for choice commitment. Our results suggest that control of speed vs accuracy may be exerted through changes in decision-related neural activity itself rather than through changes in the threshold applied to such neural activity to terminate a decision.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.02260

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Choice-reaction time task. Monkeys were required to identify the net direction of motion in a dynamic random dot display. Several levels of difficulty were randomly interleaved. The monkeys indicated their choice by making a saccadic eye movement to the appropriate choice target. They could do so at any time after onset of the random dot motion stimulus. Reaction time (RT) was measured from the time of motion onset until initiation of the saccade. The monkeys learned to perform the task in two different speed-accuracy regimes. For neural recordings, one choice target was placed in the response field of a single LIP neuron, as illustrated, and the other target was placed in the opposite hemifield. The circle showing the RF is for illustration purposes and was not displayed to the monkey. The target in the neuron's RF is referred to as Tin; the other target is referred to as Tout. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.003
Figure 1. Choice-reaction time task. Monkeys were required to identify the net direction of motion in a dynamic random dot display. Several levels of difficulty were randomly interleaved. The monkeys indicated their choice by making a saccadic eye movement to the appropriate choice target. They could do so at any time after onset of the random dot motion stimulus. Reaction time (RT) was measured from the time of motion onset until initiation of the saccade. The monkeys learned to perform the task in two different speed-accuracy regimes. For neural recordings, one choice target was placed in the response field of a single LIP neuron, as illustrated, and the other target was placed in the opposite hemifield. The circle showing the RF is for illustration purposes and was not displayed to the monkey. The target in the neuron's RF is referred to as Tin; the other target is referred to as Tout. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.003CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Decision accuracy and reaction time in two speed-accuracy regimes are explained by bounded evidence accumulation. (A) Data from two monkeys. Black symbols and lines show the high accuracy regime. Red symbols and lines show the high speed regime. The top graph shows the proportion of correct choices plotted as a function of motion strength. Decision accuracy improved with stronger motion in both regimes. The bottom graph shows mean RT (±SEM) plotted as a function of motion strength. RTs decreased for stronger motion in both regimes. In the regime where the monkeys responded more slowly, their performance improved relative to the other regime. N = 3534 and 3307 trials for the high speed and high accuracy regimes, respectively, for monkey D and 4838 and 4733 trials for the same regimes for monkey E. (B and C) Bounded evidence-accumulation models. Noisy evidence is accumulated until it reaches a terminating threshold or bound, which establishes the time and sign of the decision. (B) Traditionally, this is represented as a single accumulation—or drift-diffusion process—between an upper and lower bound. (C) The model can be described equivalently as a race between two anticorrelated drift-diffusion processes, such that negative evidence for one process is positive evidence for the other. The decision is determined by the first accumulation to reach the bound. The traces in (A) show fits to the data using the bounded accumulation model. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.004
Figure 2. Decision accuracy and reaction time in two speed-accuracy regimes are explained by bounded evidence accumulation. (A) Data from two monkeys. Black symbols and lines show the high accuracy regime. Red symbols and lines show the high speed regime. The top graph shows the proportion of correct choices plotted as a function of motion strength. Decision accuracy improved with stronger motion in both regimes. The bottom graph shows mean RT (±SEM) plotted as a function of motion strength. RTs decreased for stronger motion in both regimes. In the regime where the monkeys responded more slowly, their performance improved relative to the other regime. N = 3534 and 3307 trials for the high speed and high accuracy regimes, respectively, for monkey D and 4838 and 4733 trials for the same regimes for monkey E. (B and C) Bounded evidence-accumulation models. Noisy evidence is accumulated until it reaches a terminating threshold or bound, which establishes the time and sign of the decision. (B) Traditionally, this is represented as a single accumulation—or drift-diffusion process—between an upper and lower bound. (C) The model can be described equivalently as a race between two anticorrelated drift-diffusion processes, such that negative evidence for one process is positive evidence for the other. The decision is determined by the first accumulation to reach the bound. The traces in (A) show fits to the data using the bounded accumulation model. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.004CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Comparison of neural responses accompanying decision formation in the two speed-accuracy regimes. (A and B) Population firing rates plotted as function of time from stimulus onset and sorted by stimulus strength. Lighter green colors correspond to stronger Tin motion; lighter orange colors correspond to stronger Tout motion; darker colors correspond to intermediate stimulus strengths. Averages depict combined data from both monkeys. In both regimes, the responses exhibit characteristic ramping profiles that depend on stimulus strength approximately 200 ms after stimulus onset. Prior to averaging, responses for each neuron were normalized based on the peri-saccadic response (0–50 ms prior to saccade initiation) measured during a block of visually-guided delayed saccade trials. N = 35 neurons in each speed-accuracy regime. Error bars show SEM. For each condition, traces end at the point beyond which fewer than 50% of the trials would contribute to the averages, owing to the different RTs for each trial. (C) Buildup rate plotted as a function of motion coherence for the high accuracy regime (black) and the high speed regime (red). Error bars show SEM for the estimated buildup rates for each data point. Line fits capture the relationship between buildup rate and motion strength. Overall, the buildup rates were shifted to larger values in the high speed regime, but the change in buildup rate per unit motion strength was similar in the two regimes. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.005
Figure 3. Comparison of neural responses accompanying decision formation in the two speed-accuracy regimes. (A and B) Population firing rates plotted as function of time from stimulus onset and sorted by stimulus strength. Lighter green colors correspond to stronger Tin motion; lighter orange colors correspond to stronger Tout motion; darker colors correspond to intermediate stimulus strengths. Averages depict combined data from both monkeys. In both regimes, the responses exhibit characteristic ramping profiles that depend on stimulus strength approximately 200 ms after stimulus onset. Prior to averaging, responses for each neuron were normalized based on the peri-saccadic response (0–50 ms prior to saccade initiation) measured during a block of visually-guided delayed saccade trials. N = 35 neurons in each speed-accuracy regime. Error bars show SEM. For each condition, traces end at the point beyond which fewer than 50% of the trials would contribute to the averages, owing to the different RTs for each trial. (C) Buildup rate plotted as a function of motion coherence for the high accuracy regime (black) and the high speed regime (red). Error bars show SEM for the estimated buildup rates for each data point. Line fits capture the relationship between buildup rate and motion strength. Overall, the buildup rates were shifted to larger values in the high speed regime, but the change in buildup rate per unit motion strength was similar in the two regimes. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.005CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Comparison of neural responses accompanying decision termination in the two speed-accuracy regimes. (A) Pre-saccadic responses plotted as a function of motion coherence for Tin choices. Firing rates were measured in a 50 ms window, centered 75 ms before the saccade (accuracy and speed regime in black and red, respectively). The flat regression is consistent with the idea that the responses reach a common value before Tin choices, for all motion strengths. Normalization procedure is identical to Figure 3. (B and C) Tin responses plotted as a function of time from the saccade and sorted by reaction-time quintile (colors). Averages depict combined data from both monkeys. In both speed-accuracy regimes, responses are stereotyped before the saccade. N = 35 neurons in each speed-accuracy regime. Error bars show SEM. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.006
Figure 4. Comparison of neural responses accompanying decision termination in the two speed-accuracy regimes. (A) Pre-saccadic responses plotted as a function of motion coherence for Tin choices. Firing rates were measured in a 50 ms window, centered 75 ms before the saccade (accuracy and speed regime in black and red, respectively). The flat regression is consistent with the idea that the responses reach a common value before Tin choices, for all motion strengths. Normalization procedure is identical to Figure 3. (B and C) Tin responses plotted as a function of time from the saccade and sorted by reaction-time quintile (colors). Averages depict combined data from both monkeys. In both speed-accuracy regimes, responses are stereotyped before the saccade. N = 35 neurons in each speed-accuracy regime. Error bars show SEM. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.006CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Speed-accuracy tradeoff alters LIP responses from the beginning of the decision process. (A) Population firing rates plotted for each monkey. Red and black traces correspond to the speed and accuracy regimes, respectively. On the left, responses are plotted as a function of time from motion onset averaged across both directions of motion and all motion strengths (same normalization as in Figures 3 and 4). Trials contribute data to the average only up to 100 ms before the saccade. Averages are shown up to the time when half of the 50% coherent motion trials contribute data. On the right, responses are plotted as a function of time from the saccade. Responses are averaged across all trials that ended in a Tin choice. Trials contribute data to the average only from 200 ms after motion onset onwards. Curve thickness (shading) shows SEM. N = 17 and 15 neurons for the high speed and high accuracy regimes, respectively, for monkey D. N = 18 and 20 neurons for the high speed and high accuracy regimes, respectively, for monkey E. (B) The relationship between the magnitude of the evidence-independent neural response and mean RT across experiments. The response statistic captures the evidence-independent component of the firing rate early in the decision process, expressed as a fraction of the average response from the neuron 75 ms before all Tin choices (‘Materials and methods’). Larger values imply that less evidence-dependent signal is required to reach the bound. A value of 1 indicates that on average the evidence-independent signal alone would reach the ‘neural bound’ by 300 ms. Neurons from monkey D are shown as circles; neurons from monkey E are shown as crosses. Red symbols correspond to neurons recorded in the high speed regime; black symbols correspond to the high accuracy regime. Ellipses are drawn to the 50% confidence region based on the covariance matrix calculated for each speed-accuracy regime. The correlations in each regime were significant (p<0.05). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.007
Figure 5. Speed-accuracy tradeoff alters LIP responses from the beginning of the decision process. (A) Population firing rates plotted for each monkey. Red and black traces correspond to the speed and accuracy regimes, respectively. On the left, responses are plotted as a function of time from motion onset averaged across both directions of motion and all motion strengths (same normalization as in Figures 3 and 4). Trials contribute data to the average only up to 100 ms before the saccade. Averages are shown up to the time when half of the 50% coherent motion trials contribute data. On the right, responses are plotted as a function of time from the saccade. Responses are averaged across all trials that ended in a Tin choice. Trials contribute data to the average only from 200 ms after motion onset onwards. Curve thickness (shading) shows SEM. N = 17 and 15 neurons for the high speed and high accuracy regimes, respectively, for monkey D. N = 18 and 20 neurons for the high speed and high accuracy regimes, respectively, for monkey E. (B) The relationship between the magnitude of the evidence-independent neural response and mean RT across experiments. The response statistic captures the evidence-independent component of the firing rate early in the decision process, expressed as a fraction of the average response from the neuron 75 ms before all Tin choices (‘Materials and methods’). Larger values imply that less evidence-dependent signal is required to reach the bound. A value of 1 indicates that on average the evidence-independent signal alone would reach the ‘neural bound’ by 300 ms. Neurons from monkey D are shown as circles; neurons from monkey E are shown as crosses. Red symbols correspond to neurons recorded in the high speed regime; black symbols correspond to the high accuracy regime. Ellipses are drawn to the 50% confidence region based on the covariance matrix calculated for each speed-accuracy regime. The correlations in each regime were significant (p<0.05). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.007CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6. The neurally-derived urgency signal explains the magnitude of the behavioral change between speed-accuracy regimes. (A) Hyperbolic ‘urgency’ functions fit to the neural responses from 200 ms after motion onset (decision time = 0) to the point in time beyond which fewer than 50% of the trials contribute to the averages for the highest motion strength in each regime (Figure 5A, Equation 6 in ‘Materials and methods’). Left column is for monkey D; right column is for monkey E. (B) Neurally-constrained fits to behavior. Points show behavioral data from Figure 2. The curves are neurally-constrained model fits to the data. All model parameters are shared (i.e., constrained to be equal) between speed-accuracy regimes except for the difference in excursion, which is measured directly from the neural responses. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.008
Figure 6. The neurally-derived urgency signal explains the magnitude of the behavioral change between speed-accuracy regimes. (A) Hyperbolic ‘urgency’ functions fit to the neural responses from 200 ms after motion onset (decision time = 0) to the point in time beyond which fewer than 50% of the trials contribute to the averages for the highest motion strength in each regime (Figure 5A, Equation 6 in ‘Materials and methods’). Left column is for monkey D; right column is for monkey E. (B) Neurally-constrained fits to behavior. Points show behavioral data from Figure 2. The curves are neurally-constrained model fits to the data. All model parameters are shared (i.e., constrained to be equal) between speed-accuracy regimes except for the difference in excursion, which is measured directly from the neural responses. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02260.008CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Green, 1973, Speed-accuracy trade off in auditory detection
  2. Lewis, 2000, Mapping of architectonic subdivisions in the macaque monkey, with emphasis on parieto-occipital cortex, The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 428, 79, 10.1002/1096-9861(20001204)428:13.0.CO;2-Q · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 222

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hanks, T., Kiani, R., & Shadlen, M. N.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hanks, Timothy
  • Shadlen, Michael N
ORCID
Venue
eLife
Publisher
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Published
2014-05-27
Volume
3
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7554/elife.02260
PMC
PMC4054775
OpenAlex
W2170716773
Cited by
222
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 3
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Eye Institute (EY11378)
  • Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0067/2011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
speed-accuracy trade-off, lateral intraparietal area, decision-making, evidence accumulation, decision threshold, motion discrimination, macaque
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Macaca, Models, Neurological, Motion Perception, Neurons, Neurophysiology, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results

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