skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Strategy-dependent effects of working-memory limitations on human perceptual decision-making
Working memory, the brain’s ability to temporarily store and recall information, is a critical part of decision making – but it has its limits. The brain can only store so much information, for so long. Since decisions are not often acted on immediately, information held in working memory ‘degrades’ over time. However, it is unknown whether or not this degradation of information over time affects the accuracy of later decisions. The tactics that people use, knowingly or otherwise, to store information in working memory also remain unclear. Do people store pieces of information such as numbers, objects and particular details? Or do they tend to compute that information, make some preliminary judgement and recall their verdict later? Does the strategy chosen impact people’s decision-making? To investigate, Schapiro et al. devised a series of experiments to test whether the limitations of working memory, and how people store information, affect the accuracy of decisions they make. First, participants were shown an array of colored discs on a screen. Then, either immediately after seeing the disks or a few seconds later, the participants were asked to recall the position of one of the disks they had seen, or the average position of all the disks. This measured how much information degraded for a decision based on multiple items, and how much for a decision based on a single item. From this, the method of information storage used to make a decision could be inferred. Schapiro et al. found that the accuracy of people’s responses worsened over time, whether they remembered the position of each individual disk, or computed their average location before responding. The greater the delay between seeing the disks and reporting their location, the less accurate people’s responses tended to be. Similarly, the more disks a participant saw, the less accurate their response became. This suggests that however people store information, if working memory reaches capacity, decision-making suffers and that, over time, stored information decays. Schapiro et al. also noticed that participants remembered location information in different ways depending on the task and how many disks they were shown at once. This suggests people adopt different strategies to retain information momentarily. In summary, these findings help to explain how people process and store information to make decisions and how the limitations of working memory impact their decision-making ability. A better understanding of how people use working memory to make decisions may also shed light on situations or brain conditions where decision-making is impaired.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1853630
PAR ID:
10375766
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
eLife
Volume:
11
ISSN:
2050-084X
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ( , Current Directions in Psychological Science)

    Visual working memory is traditionally studied using abstract, meaningless stimuli. Although studies using such simplified stimuli have been insightful in understanding the mechanisms of visual working memory, they also potentially limit our ability to understand how people encode and store conceptually rich and meaningful stimuli in the real world. Recent studies have demonstrated that meaningful and familiar visual stimuli that connect to existing knowledge are better remembered than abstract colors or shapes, indicating that meaning can unlock additional working memory capacity. These findings challenge current models of visual working memory and suggest that its capacity is not fixed but depends on the type of information that is being remembered and, in particular, how that information connects to preexisting knowledge.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ( , Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society)
    Fitch., T. ; Lamm, C. ; Leder, H. ; Teßmar-Raible, K. (Ed.)
    We make frequent decisions about how to manage our health, yet do so with information that is highly complex or received piecemeal. Causal models can provide guidance about how components of a complex system interact, yet models that provide a complete causal story may be more complex than people can reason about. Prior work has provided mixed insights into our ability to make decisions with causal models, showing that people can use them in novel domains but that they may impede decisions in familiar ones. We examine how tailoring causal information to the question at hand may aid decision making, using simple diagrams with only the relevant causal paths (Experiment 1) or those paths highlighted within a complex causal model (Experiment 2). We find that diagrams tailored to a choice improve decision accuracy over complex diagrams or prior knowledge, providing new evidence for how causal models can aid decisions. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction)
    Research exploring how to support decision-making has often used machine learning to automate or assist human decisions. We take an alternative approach for improving decision-making, using machine learning to help stakeholders surface ways to improve and make fairer decision-making processes. We created "Deliberating with AI", a web tool that enables people to create and evaluate ML models in order to examine strengths and shortcomings of past decision-making and deliberate on how to improve future decisions. We apply this tool to a context of people selection, having stakeholders---decision makers (faculty) and decision subjects (students)---use the tool to improve graduate school admission decisions. Through our case study, we demonstrate how the stakeholders used the web tool to create ML models that they used as boundary objects to deliberate over organization decision-making practices. We share insights from our study to inform future research on stakeholder-centered participatory AI design and technology for organizational decision-making. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ( , Solid Earth)
    Abstract. In the geosciences, recent attention has been paid to the influence of uncertainty on expert decision-making. When making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, people tend to employ heuristics (rules of thumb) based on experience, relying on their prior knowledge and beliefs to intuitively guide choice. Over 50 years of decision-making research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that heuristics can lead to less-than-optimal decisions, collectively referred to as biases. For example, the availability bias occurs when people make judgments based on what is most dominant or accessible in memory; geoscientists who have spent the past several months studying strike-slip faults will have this terrain most readily available in their mind when interpreting new seismic data. Given the important social and commercial implications of many geoscience decisions, there is a need to develop effective interventions for removing or mitigating decision bias. In this paper, we outline the key insights from decision-making research about how to reduce bias and review the literature on debiasing strategies. First, we define an optimal decision, since improving decision-making requires having a standard to work towards. Next, we discuss the cognitive mechanisms underlying decision biases and describe three biases that have been shown to influence geoscientists' decision-making (availability bias, framing bias, anchoring bias). Finally, we review existing debiasing strategies that have applicability in the geosciences, with special attention given to strategies that make use of information technology and artificial intelligence (AI). We present two case studies illustrating different applications of intelligent systems for the debiasing of geoscientific decision-making, wherein debiased decision-making is an emergent property of the coordinated and integrated processing of human–AI collaborative teams. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ( , Solid Earth Discussions)

    Abstract. In the geosciences, recent attention has been paid to the influence of uncertainty on expert decision making. When making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, people tend to employ heuristics (rules of thumb) based on experience, relying on their prior knowledge and beliefs to intuitively guide choice. Over 50 years of decision making research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that heuristics can lead to less-than-optimal decisions, collectively referred to as biases. For example, a geologist who confidently interprets ambiguous data as representative of a familiar category form their research (e.g., strike slip faults for expert in extensional domains) is exhibiting the availability bias, which occurs when people make judgments based on what is most dominant or accessible in memory. Given the important social and commercial implications of many geoscience decisions, there is a need to develop effective interventions for removing or mitigating decision bias. In this paper, we summarize the key insights from decision making research about how to reduce bias and review the literature on debiasing strategies. First, we define an optimal decision, since improving decision making requires having a standard to work towards. Next, we discuss the cognitive mechanisms underlying decision biases and describe three biases that have been shown to influence geoscientists decision making (availability bias, framing bias, anchoring bias). Finally, we review existing debiasing strategies that have applicability in the geosciences, with special attention given to those strategies that make use of information technology and artificial intelligence (AI). We present two case studies illustrating different applications of intelligent systems for the debiasing of geoscientific decision making, where debiased decision making is an emergent property of the coordinated and integrated processing of human-AI collaborative teams.

     
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email