title: Bayesian inference underlies the contraction bias in delayed comparison tasks.
abstract: Delayed comparison tasks are widely used in the study of working memory and perception in psychology and neuroscience. It has long been known, however, that decisions in these tasks are biased. When the two stimuli in a delayed comparison trial are small in magnitude, subjects tend to report that the first stimulus is larger than the second stimulus. In contrast, subjects tend to report that the second stimulus is larger than the first when the stimuli are relatively large. Here we study the computational principles underlying this bias, also known as the contraction bias. We propose that the contraction bias results from a Bayesian computation in which a noisy representation of a magnitude is combined with a-priori information about the distribution of magnitudes to optimize performance. We test our hypothesis on choice behavior in a visual delayed comparison experiment by studying the effect of (i) changing the prior distribution and (ii) changing the uncertainty in the memorized stimulus. We show that choice behavior in both manipulations is consistent with the performance of an observer who uses a Bayesian inference in order to improve performance. Moreover, our results suggest that the contraction bias arises during memory retrieval/decision making and not during memory encoding. These results support the notion that the contraction bias illusion can be understood as resulting from optimality considerations.
authors: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America. paymon@mit.edu
authors: Paymon
authors: P
authors: Ashourian
authors: Yonatan
authors: Y
authors: Loewenstein
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Apr;19(2):227-49
references: 8473837
references: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Apr;9(4):578-85
references: 16547513
references: Vision Res. 1999 Oct;39(21):3621-9
references: 10746132
references: J Neurosci. 2005 Aug 3;25(31):7169-78
references: 16079399
references: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003 Jul;20(7):1398-406
references: 12868644
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):162-9
references: 15050512
references: Nature. 2004 Jan 15;427(6971):244-7
references: 14724638
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Jun;129(2):220-41
references: 10868335
references: Nat Neurosci. 2010 Aug;13(8):1020-6
references: 20581842
references: J Vis. 2010 Jul 01;10(8):2
references: 20884577
references: Vision Res. 2008 Aug;48(17):1837-51
references: 18585750
references: Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):598-604
references: 12021763
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 19;105(33):12087-92
references: 18697948
references: Psychol Rev. 1965 Nov;72(6):407-18
references: 5852241
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Aug 29;357(1424):1123-36
references: 12217179
references: J Vis. 2004 Dec 29;4(12):1120-35
references: 15669916
references: Curr Biol. 2004 Feb 3;14(3):257-62
references: 14761661
references: J Mol Neurosci. 2009 Nov;39 Suppl 1:S3-132
references: 19894025
references: Psychol Sci. 2006 Sep;17(9):767-73
references: 16984293
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1977 Jun;61(6):1577-85
references: 893804