Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Neuroscience

Open Access

Trial-by-trial modeling of electrophysiological signals during inverse Bayesian inference

BMC Neuroscience201415(Suppl 1):O8

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-15-S1-O8

Published: 21 July 2014

Empirical support for the Bayesian brain hypothesis, although of major theoretical importance for cognitive neuroscience, is surprisingly scarce. The literature still lacks definitive functional neuroimaging evidence that neural activities code and compute Bayesian probabilities. Here, we introduce a new experimental design to relate electrophysiological measures to Bayesian inference. Specifically, an urns-and-balls paradigm was used to study neural underpinnings of probabilistic inverse inference. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from human participants who performed the urns-and-balls paradigm, and computational modeling was conducted on trial-by-trial electrophysiological signals. Five computational models were compared with respect to their capacity to predict electrophysiological measures. One Bayesian model (BAY) was compared with another Bayesian model which takes potential effects of non-linear probability weighting into account (BAYS). A predictive surprise model (TOPS) of sequential probability revisions was derived from the Bayesian models. A comparison was made with two published models of surprise (DIF [1] and OST [2]).

Subsets of the trial-by-trial electrophysiological signals were differentially sensitive to model predictors: The anteriorly distributed N250 was best fit by the DIF model, the BAYS model provided the best fit to the anteriorly distributed P3a, whereas the posteriorly distributed P3b and Slow Wave were best fit by the TOPS model. Figure 1 shows the model fit in log-Bayes factor [3] as scalp maps for the BAYS and TOPS models for P3a and P3b time windows, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the model comparison by translating the log-Bayes factors to posterior model probabilities [4] for all models and all ERPs at the respective time windows and electrodes. These results show that dissociable cortical activities code and compute different aspects of Bayesian updating. However, these activities might be best described as being Bayes optimal, implying that they reflect Bayesian inference, modulated by non-linear probability weighting, as originally conjectured by prospect theory [5, 6].
Figure 1

Scalp maps of averaged log-Bayes factors of models with non-linear probability weighting versus a null model. A. Bayesian surprise model (BAYS). B. Predictive surprise model (TOPS).

Table 1

Posterior model probabilities.

 

ERP waves and electrodes

 

N250

P3a

P3b

SW

Model

C4

FCz

Pz

O1

OST

0.02

< 0.01

< 0.01

< 0.01

DIF

0.66

< 0.01

< 0.01

< 0.01

TOPS

0.28

< 0.01

0.88

0.82

BAY

< 0.01

< 0.01

< 0.01

< 0.01

BAYS

0.04

0.99

0.12

0.18

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute for Communications Technology, Technische Universität Braunschweig
(2)
Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School

References

  1. Kolossa A, Fingscheidt T, Wessel K, Kopp B: A model-based approach to trial-by-trial P300 amplitude fluctuations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012, 6: 359-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ostwald D, Spitzer B, Guggenmos M, Schmidt TT, Kiebel SJ, Blankenburg F: Evidence for neural encoding of Bayesian surprise in human somatosensation. NeuroImage. 2012, 62: 177-188. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.050.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Friston KJ, Penny WD, Phillips C, Kiebel SJ, Hinton G, Ashburner J: Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimaging: theory. NeuroImage. 2002, 16: 465-483. 10.1006/nimg.2002.1090.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hoijtink H: Informative Hypotheses: theory and practice for behavioral and social scientists. 2012, New York: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Kahneman D, Tversky A: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979, 47: 263-291. 10.2307/1914185.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Tversky A, Kahneman D: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992, 5: 297-323. 10.1007/BF00122574.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kolossa et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement