An ideal observer will give equivalent weight to sources of information that are equally reliable. However, when averaging visual information, human observers tend to downweight or discount features that are relatively outlying or deviant (‘robust averaging’). Why humans adopt an integration policy that discards important decision information remains unknown. Here, observers were asked to judge the average tilt in a circular array of high-contrast gratings, relative to an orientation boundary defined by a central reference grating. Observers showed robust averaging of orientation, but the extent to which they did so was a positive predictor of their overall performance. Using computational simulations, we show that although robust averaging is suboptimal for a perfect integrator, it paradoxically enhances performance in the presence of “late” noise, i.e. which corrupts decisions during integration. In other words, robust decision strategies increase the brain’s resilience to noise arising in neural computations during decision-making.

SignificanceInformation in the world can sometimes be irrelevant for our decisions. A good decision maker should take into account the relevant information and ignore the distracting information. However, empirical observation showed that human decisions are unduly influenced by distracting information. Diverse theories have been proposed to explain the cost that distracters incur during decision making across perceptual, cognitive, and economics domains. Here, we propose a single, unified model that is based on adaptive gain control to explain the influence of distraction across domains.

Human decisions can be biased by irrelevant information. For example, choices between two preferred alternatives can be swayed by a third option that is inferior or unavailable. Previous work has identified three classic biases, known as the attraction, similarity, and compromise effects, which arise during choices between economic alternatives defined by two attributes. However, the reliability, interrelationship, and computational origin of these three biases have been controversial. Here, a large cohort of human participants made incentive-compatible choices among assets that varied in price and quality. Instead of focusing on the three classic effects, we sampled decoy stimuli exhaustively across bidimensional multiattribute space and constructed a full map of decoy influence on choices between two otherwise preferred target items. Our analysis reveals that the decoy influence map is highly structured even beyond the three classic biases. We identify a very simple model that can fully reproduce the decoy influence map and capture its variability in individual participants. This model reveals that the three decoy effects are not distinct phenomena but are all special cases of a more general principle, by which attribute values are repulsed away from the context provided by rival options. The model helps us understand why the biases are typically correlated across participants and allows us to validate a prediction about their interrelationship. This work helps to clarify the origin of three of the most widely studied biases in human decision-making.

Humans move their eyes to gather information about the visual world. However, saccadic sampling has largely been explored in paradigms that involve searching for a lone target in a cluttered array or natural scene. Here, we investigated the policy that humans use to overtly sample information in a perceptual decision task that required information from across multiple spatial locations to be combined. Participants viewed a spatial array of numbers and judged whether the average was greater or smaller than a reference value. Participants preferentially sampled items that were less diagnostic of the correct answer ("inlying" elements; that is, elements closer to the reference value). This preference to sample inlying items was linked to decisions, enhancing the tendency to give more weight to inlying elements in the final choice ("robust averaging"). These findings contrast with a large body of evidence indicating that gaze is directed preferentially to deviant information during natural scene viewing and visual search, and suggest that humans may sample information "robustly" with their eyes during perceptual decision-making.

Rahnev & Denison (R&D) argue that whether people are “optimal” or “suboptimal” is not a well-posed question. We agree. However, we argue that the critical question is why humans make suboptimal perceptual decisions in the first place. We suggest that perceptual distortions have a normative explanation – that they promote efficient coding and computation in biological information processing systems.