Explore the vast range of titles available.

For more than 60 years, it has been known that people report higher (lower) subjective values for items after having selected (rejected) them during a choice task. This phenomenon is coined \"choice-induced preference change\" or CIPC, and its established interpretation is that of \"cognitive dissonance\" theory. In brief, if people feel uneasy about their choice, they later convince themselves, albeit not always consciously, that the chosen (rejected) item was actually better (worse) than they had originally estimated. While this might make sense from an intuitive psychological standpoint, it is challenging from a theoretical evolutionary perspective. This is because such a cognitive mechanism might yield irrational biases, whose adaptive fitness would be unclear. In this work, we consider an alternative possibility, namely that CIPC is -at least partially- due to the refinement of option value representations that occurs while people are pondering about choice options. For example, contemplating competing possibilities during a choice may highlight aspects of the alternative options that were not considered before. In the context of difficult decisions, this would enable people to reassess option values until they reach a satisfactory level of confidence. This makes CIPC the epiphenomenal outcome of a cognitive process that is instrumental to the decision. Critically, our hypothesis implies novel predictions about how observed CIPC should relate to two specific meta-cognitive processes, namely: choice confidence and subjective certainty regarding pre-choice value judgments. We test these predictions in a behavioral experiment where participants rate the subjective value of food items both before and after choosing between equally valued items; we augment this traditional design with both reports of choice confidence and subjective certainty about value judgments. The results confirm our predictions and provide evidence that many quantitative features of CIPC (in particular: its relationship with metacognitive judgments) may be explained without ever invoking post-choice cognitive dissonance reduction explanation. We then discuss the relevance of our work in the context of the existing debate regarding the putative cognitive mechanisms underlying CIPC.

This work is in line with an on-going effort tending toward a computational (quantitative and refutable) understanding of human neuro-cognitive processes. Many sophisticated models for behavioural and neurobiological data have flourished during the past decade. Most of these models are partly unspecified (i.e. they have unknown parameters) and nonlinear. This makes them difficult to peer with a formal statistical data analysis framework. In turn, this compromises the reproducibility of model-based empirical studies. This work exposes a software toolbox that provides generic, efficient and robust probabilistic solutions to the three problems of model-based analysis of empirical data: (i) data simulation, (ii) parameter estimation/model selection, and (iii) experimental design optimization.

Why do we sometimes opt for actions or items that we do not value the most? Under current neurocomputational theories, such preference reversals are typically interpreted in terms of errors that arise from the unreliable signaling of value to brain decision systems. But, an alternative explanation is that people may change their mind because they are reassessing the value of alternative options while pondering the decision. So, why do we carefully ponder some decisions, but not others? In this work, we derive a computational model of the metacognitive control of decisions or MCD. In brief, we assume that fast and automatic processes first provide initial (and largely uncertain) representations of options' values, yielding prior estimates of decision difficulty. These uncertain value representations are then refined by deploying cognitive (e.g., attentional, mnesic) resources, the allocation of which is controlled by an effort-confidence tradeoff. Importantly, the anticipated benefit of allocating resources varies in a decision-by-decision manner according to the prior estimate of decision difficulty. The ensuing MCD model predicts response time, subjective feeling of effort, choice confidence, changes of mind, as well as choice-induced preference change and certainty gain. We test these predictions in a systematic manner, using a dedicated behavioral paradigm. Our results provide a quantitative link between mental effort, choice confidence, and preference reversals, which could inform interpretations of related neuroimaging findings.

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex has been identified as a key node for judging the pleasantness of various situations. In a series of fMRI experiments, Lebreton and colleagues demonstrate that the same brain region also computes an implicit representation of confidence, defined as an estimate of judgment accuracy. A key process in decision-making is estimating the value of possible outcomes. Growing evidence suggests that different types of values are automatically encoded in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). Here we extend this idea by suggesting that any overt judgment is accompanied by a second-order valuation (a confidence estimate), which is also automatically incorporated in VMPFC activity. In accordance with the predictions of our normative model of rating tasks, two behavioral experiments showed that confidence levels were quadratically related to first-order judgments (age, value or probability ratings). The analysis of three functional magnetic resonance imaging data sets using similar rating tasks confirmed that the quadratic extension of first-order ratings (our proxy for confidence) was encoded in VMPFC activity, even if no confidence judgment was required of the participants. Such an automatic aggregation of value and confidence in a same brain region might provide insight into many distortions of judgment and choice.

Is irrational behavior the incidental outcome of biological constraints imposed on neural information processing? In this work, we consider the paradigmatic case of gamble decisions, where gamble values integrate prospective gains and losses. Under the assumption that neurons have a limited firing response range, we show that mitigating the ensuing information loss within artificial neural networks that synthetize value involves a specific form of self-organized plasticity. We demonstrate that the ensuing efficient value synthesis mechanism induces value range adaptation. We also reveal how the ranges of prospective gains and/or losses eventually determine both the behavioral sensitivity to gains and losses and the information content of the network. We test these predictions on two fMRI datasets from the OpenNeuro.org initiative that probe gamble decision-making but differ in terms of the range of gain prospects. First, we show that peoples' loss aversion eventually adapts to the range of gain prospects they are exposed to. Second, we show that the strength with which the orbitofrontal cortex (in particular: Brodmann area 11) encodes gains and expected value also depends upon the range of gain prospects. Third, we show that, when fitted to participant’s gambling choices, self-organizing artificial neural networks generalize across gain range contexts and predict the geometry of information content within the orbitofrontal cortex. Our results demonstrate how self-organizing plasticity aiming at mitigating information loss induced by neurons’ limited response range may result in value range adaptation, eventually yielding irrational behavior.

This is the final paper in a Comments and Controversies series dedicated to “The identification of interacting networks in the brain using fMRI: Model selection, causality and deconvolution”. We argue that discovering effective connectivity depends critically on state-space models with biophysically informed observation and state equations. These models have to be endowed with priors on unknown parameters and afford checks for model Identifiability. We consider the similarities and differences among Dynamic Causal Modeling, Granger Causal Modeling and other approaches. We establish links between past and current statistical causal modeling, in terms of Bayesian dependency graphs and Wiener–Akaike–Granger–Schweder influence measures. We show that some of the challenges faced in this field have promising solutions and speculate on future developments.

Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states (e.g., beliefs and desires) to other people in order to understand and predict their behaviour. If others are rewarded to compete or cooperate with you, then what they will do depends upon what they believe about you. This is the reason why social interaction induces recursive ToM, of the sort \"I think that you think that I think, etc.\". Critically, recursion is the common notion behind the definition of sophistication of human language, strategic thinking in games, and, arguably, ToM. Although sophisticated ToM is believed to have high adaptive fitness, broad experimental evidence from behavioural economics, experimental psychology and linguistics point towards limited recursivity in representing other's beliefs. In this work, we test whether such apparent limitation may not in fact be proven to be adaptive, i.e. optimal in an evolutionary sense. First, we propose a meta-Bayesian approach that can predict the behaviour of ToM sophistication phenotypes who engage in social interactions. Second, we measure their adaptive fitness using evolutionary game theory. Our main contribution is to show that one does not have to appeal to biological costs to explain our limited ToM sophistication. In fact, the evolutionary cost/benefit ratio of ToM sophistication is non trivial. This is partly because an informational cost prevents highly sophisticated ToM phenotypes to fully exploit less sophisticated ones (in a competitive context). In addition, cooperation surprisingly favours lower levels of ToM sophistication. Taken together, these quantitative corollaries of the \"social Bayesian brain\" hypothesis provide an evolutionary account for both the limitation of ToM sophistication in humans as well as the persistence of low ToM sophistication levels.

When it comes to interpreting others' behaviour, we almost irrepressibly engage in the attribution of mental states (beliefs, emotions…). Such \"mentalizing\" can become very sophisticated, eventually endowing us with highly adaptive skills such as convincing, teaching or deceiving. Here, sophistication can be captured in terms of the depth of our recursive beliefs, as in \"I think that you think that I think…\" In this work, we test whether such sophisticated recursive beliefs subtend learning in the context of social interaction. We asked participants to play repeated games against artificial (Bayesian) mentalizing agents, which differ in their sophistication. Critically, we made people believe either that they were playing against each other, or that they were gambling like in a casino. Although both framings are similarly deceiving, participants win against the artificial (sophisticated) mentalizing agents in the social framing of the task, and lose in the non-social framing. Moreover, we find that participants' choice sequences are best explained by sophisticated mentalizing Bayesian learning models only in the social framing. This study is the first demonstration of the added-value of mentalizing on learning in the context of repeated social interactions. Importantly, our results show that we would not be able to decipher intentional behaviour without a priori attributing mental states to others.

We have previously tried to explain perceptual inference and learning under a free-energy principle that pursues Helmholtz's agenda to understand the brain in terms of energy minimization. It is fairly easy to show that making inferences about the causes of sensory data can be cast as the minimization of a free-energy bound on the likelihood of sensory inputs, given an internal model of how they were caused. In this article, we consider what would happen if the data themselves were sampled to minimize this bound. It transpires that the ensuing active sampling or inference is mandated by ergodic arguments based on the very existence of adaptive agents. Furthermore, it accounts for many aspects of motor behavior; from retinal stabilization to goal-seeking. In particular, it suggests that motor control can be understood as fulfilling prior expectations about proprioceptive sensations. This formulation can explain why adaptive behavior emerges in biological agents and suggests a simple alternative to optimal control theory. We illustrate these points using simulations of oculomotor control and then apply to same principles to cued and goal-directed movements. In short, the free-energy formulation may provide an alternative perspective on the motor control that places it in an intimate relationship with perception.

Mood effects on economic choice seem blatantly irrational, but might rise from mechanisms adapted to natural environments. We have proposed a theory in which mood helps adapting the behaviour to statistical dependencies in the environment, by biasing the expected value of foraging actions (which involve taking risk, spending time and making effort to get more reward). Here, we tested the existence of this mechanism, using an established mood induction paradigm combined with independent economic choices that opposed small but uncostly rewards to larger but costly rewards (involving either risk, delay or effort). To maximise the sensitivity to mood fluctuations, we developed an algorithm ensuring that choice options were continuously adjusted to subjective indifference points. In 102 participants tested twice, we found that during episodes of positive mood (relative to negative mood), choices were biased towards better rewarded but costly options, irrespective of the cost type. Computational modelling confirmed that the incidental mood effect was best explained by a bias added to the expected value of costly options, prior to decision making. This bias is therefore automatically applied even in artificial environments where it is not adaptive, allowing mood to spill over many sorts of decisions and generate irrational behaviours.