No abstract

SummaryData analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. To assess the impact of this flexibility on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) results, the same dataset was independently analyzed by 70 teams, testing nine ex-ante hypotheses. The flexibility of analytic approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyze the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in hypothesis test results, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of their analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Importantly, meta-analytic approaches that aggregated information across teams yielded significant consensus in activated regions across teams. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset. Our findings show that analytic flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and demonstrate factors related to variability in fMRI. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed.

Understanding how humans make competitive decisions in complex environments is a key goal of decision neuroscience. Typical experimental paradigms constrain behavioral complexity (e.g. choices in discrete-play games), and thus, the underlying neural mechanisms of dynamic social interactions remain incompletely understood. Here, we collected fMRI data while humans played a competitive real-time video game against both human and computer opponents, and then, we used Bayesian non-parametric methods to link behavior to neural mechanisms. Two key cognitive processes characterized behavior in our task: (i) the coupling of one’s actions to another’s actions (i.e. opponent sensitivity) and (ii) the advantageous timing of a given strategic action. We found that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex displayed selective activation when the subject’s actions were highly sensitive to the opponent’s actions, whereas activation in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex increased proportionally to the advantageous timing of actions to defeat one’s opponent. Moreover, the temporoparietal junction tracked both of these behavioral quantities as well as opponent social identity, indicating a more general role in monitoring other social agents. These results suggest that brain regions that are frequently implicated in social cognition and value-based decision-making also contribute to the strategic tracking of the value of social actions in dynamic, multi-agent contexts.

Previous studies of strategic social interaction in game theory have predominantly used games with clearly-defined turns and limited choices. Yet, most real-world social behaviors involve dynamic, coevolving decisions by interacting agents, which poses challenges for creating tractable models of behavior. Here, using a game in which humans competed against both real and artificial opponents, we show that it is possible to quantify the instantaneous dynamic coupling between agents. Adopting a reinforcement learning approach, we use Gaussian Processes to model the policy and value functions of participants as a function of both game state and opponent identity. We found that higher-scoring participants timed their final change in direction to moments when the opponent’s counter-strategy was weaker, while lower-scoring participants less precisely timed their final moves. This approach offers a natural set of metrics for facilitating analysis at multiple timescales and suggests new classes of experimental paradigms for assessing behavior.

No abstract