Independent Neural Computation of Value from Other People's Confidence

Campbell-Meiklejohn, Daniel; Simonsen, Arndis; Frith, C. D.; Daw, Nathaniel D.

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4490-15.2016

Cited by 48 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One convenient and intuitive hypothesis is that as subjects gradually learned the trustworthiness of both private and social signals, they would increase and decrease the weights assigned to private and social information, respectively (Dunlap, Nielsen, Dornhaus, & Papaj, 2016). Recent research in social reinforcement learning suggested that people do update their expectations of social partner based on the feedback received or the variance within social information (Campbell-Meiklejohn, Simonsen, Frith, & Daw, 2017;De Martino et al, 2017;Jones et al, 2011;King-Casas et al, 2005;Park et al, 2017;Tamir & Mitchell, 2010). Another possibility is that due to the evolutionary constraint, innate tendency to follow social information may be hard to overrule (Asch, 1956), especially in an uncertain environment; people instead only update the weight of private information and indirectly adjust the relative weights of these two information channels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private but not social information validity modulates social conformity bias

Tam

2019

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that human behaviors are susceptible to others' opinions. However, optimal decision theory mandates choices be made upon the estimated validities of different information sources and little is known about whether and how people could wean themselves off social conformity bias, especially when the social signals are uninformative. Here, we asked subjects to participate in a probabilistic urn guessing task based on their private information as well as observed choices from their partners. Specifically, we manipulated the information validity of these two sources such that only the private evidence was informative. Across trials, social conformity declined, manifested by the increased influence of the private evidence but steady effect of social information. Correspondingly, we found dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) was involved in detecting the conflict of private and social information and conforming to social signal whereas striatum was responsible for selectively updating the influence of private (but not social) evidence contingent on its inferred validity. Furthermore, functional coupling between striatum and dmPFC predicted the resistance toward the influence of social information. Together, these results may provide a mechanistic account of how the conformity bias toward uninformative social information can be remedied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private but not social information validity modulates social conformity bias

Tam

2019

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is largely 46 due to the challenge that most studies (Klucharev et al, 2009;Campbell-Meiklejohn et al, 2010; 47 Zaki et al, 2011; Izuma and Adolphs, 2013) relied on preference judgment tasks where no 48 feedback was given, which hindered the investigation of private belief, and due to a lack of a 49 comprehensive computational model that quantifies and isolates latent determinants relevant for 50 behavioral change. Furthermore, confidence is also crucial alongside individuals' actions in 51 decision-making (De Martino et al, 2012), however, only a few studies have examined both action 52 and confidence when social influence is presented (Campbell-Meiklejohn et al, 2017; De Martino 53 et al, 2017;Park et al, 2017). 54 Here we establish a comprehensive account of social influence in decision-making at the 55 behavioral, computational, and neurobiological level identifying distinct, yet interacting brain 56 regions instantiating social decision-making in humans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Normative influence leads to public compliance, but individuals 38 may maintain private beliefs, whereas informational influence hypothesizes that social information 39 is integrated into the own valuation process. Neuroscience studies have recently attempted to 40 assess the neurobiological underpinnings of both two types of influence (Klucharev et al, 2009; 41 Campbell-Meiklejohn et al, 2010;Edelson et al, 2011;Zaki et al, 2011; Izuma and Adolphs, 42 2013;Campbell-Meiklejohn et al, 2017;De Martino et al, 2017;Park et al, 2017). However, 43 results are controversial (Toelch and Dolan, 2015), and more importantly, none of them have 44 addressed the neurocomputational distinction and interaction between normative and 45 informational influence in conjunction with individuals' own valuation processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A brain network supporting social influences in human decision-making

Zhang

Gläscher

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

12Social Decision-making is driven by normative influence (leading to public compliance) and 13 informational influence (overwriting private beliefs), but how the brain encodes these modulating 14 forces in probabilistic environments remains unanswered. Using a novel goal-directed learning 15 paradigm in 185 participants, we observed opposite effects of group consensus on choice and 16 confidence: people succumbed to the group when confronted with dissenting information, but 17 increased their confidence when observing confirming information. Leveraging computational 18 modeling and functional neuroimaging we captured the nuanced distinction between normative 19 and informational influence, and identified their unique but interacting neural representations in 20 the right temporoparietal junction (processing social information) and in prefrontal cortices 21 (representing value computations), whose functional coupling instantiates a reward prediction 22 error and a novel social prediction error that modulate behavioral adjustment. These results suggest 23 that a closed-loop network between the brain's reward hub and social hub supports social influence 24 in human decision-making. 25 26 Keywords: 27 Social influence, reinforcement learning, social learning, prediction error, decision neuroscience, 28 model-based fMRI, computational modeling, hierarchical Bayesian analysis 29 30 31Most of our everyday decisions are made in a social context. This affects both big and small 32 decisions alike: we care about what our family and friends think of which major we choose in 33 college, and we also monitor other peoples' choices at the lunch counter in order to obtain some 34 guidance for our own menu selection. Behavioral studies have examined social influence as 35 expressed by conformity (Asch, 1956) and have classified two major sources of social influence: 36 normative and informational influence (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004;Toelch and Dolan, 2015; 37 Fehr and Schurtenberger, 2018). Normative influence leads to public compliance, but individuals 38 may maintain private beliefs, whereas informational influence hypothesizes that social information 39 is integrated into the own valuation process. Neuroscience studies have recently attempted to 40 assess the neurobiological underpinnings of both two types of influence (Klucharev et al., 2009; 41 Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010;Edelson et al., 2011;Zaki et al., 2011; Izuma and Adolphs, 42 2013;Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2017;De Martino et al., 2017;Park et al., 2017). However, 43 results are controversial (Toelch and Dolan, 2015), and more importantly, none of them have 44 addressed the neurocomputational distinction and interaction between normative and 45 informational influence in conjunction with individuals' own valuation processes. This is largely 46 due to the challenge that most studies (Klucharev et al., 2009;Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010; 47 Zaki et al., 2011; Izuma and Adolphs, 2013) relied on p...

show abstract

“…behavioral coupling with the VP) and correct attribution of the VP's intentions. Corresponding brain analysis reveals how anterior areas coordinate their activity with frontal and prefrontal areas, the latter generally recruited in decision-making tasks regardless of the presence of others (Tomlin et al, 2006;Campbell-Meiklejohn et al, 2017;Shaw et al, 2018;Thornton et al, 2019).…”

Section: Brain Dynamics Of Social Embodimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Human Dynamic Clamp reveals the fronto-parietal network linking real-time social coordination and cognition

Dumas

Moreau

Tognoli

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the brain allow us to interact with others, and above all how does it handle situations when the goals of the interactors overlap (i.e. cooperation) or differ (i.e. competition)? Social neuroscience has already provided some answers to these questions but has tended to treat highlevel, cognitive interpretations of social behavior separately from the sensorimotor mechanisms upon which they rely. The goal here is to identify the underlying neural processes and mechanisms linking sensorimotor coordination and intention attribution. We combine the Human Dynamic Clamp (HDC), a novel paradigm for studying realistic social behavior between self and other in well-controlled laboratory conditions, with high resolution electroencephalography (EEG). The collection of humanness and intention attribution reports, kinematics and neural data affords an opportunity to relate brain activity to the behavior of the HDC as well as to what the human is doing. Behavioral results demonstrate that sensorimotor coordination influences judgements of cooperativeness and humanness. Analysis of brain dynamics reveals two distinct networks related to integration of visuo-motor information from self and other. The two networks overlap over the right parietal region, an area known to be important for interpersonal motor interactions. Furthermore, connectivity analysis highlights how the judgement of humanness and cooperation of others modulate the connection between the right parietal hub and prefrontal cortex. These results reveal how distributed neural dynamics integrates information from 'low-level' sensorimotor mechanisms and 'high-level' social cognition to support the realistic social behaviors that play out in real time during interactive scenarios. Significance StatementDaily social interactions require us to coordinate with others and to reflect on their potential motives. This study investigates the brain and behavioral dynamics of these two key aspects of social cognition. Combining high-density electroencephalography and the Human Dynamic Clamp (a Virtual Partner endowed with human-based coordination dynamics), we show first, that several features of sensorimotor coordination influence attribution of intention and judgement of humanness; second, that the right parietal lobe is a key integration hub between information related to self-and other-behavior; and third, that the posterior online social hub is functionally coupled to anterior offline brain structures to support mentalizing about others. Our results stress the complementary nature of low-level and high-level mechanisms that underlie social cognition.

show abstract

Independent Neural Computation of Value from Other People's Confidence

Cited by 48 publications

References 64 publications

Private but not social information validity modulates social conformity bias

Private but not social information validity modulates social conformity bias

A brain network supporting social influences in human decision-making

The Human Dynamic Clamp reveals the fronto-parietal network linking real-time social coordination and cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About