August 2023
Volume 23, Issue 9
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2023
Falsifying the Bayesian confidence hypothesis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kai Xue
    Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Medha Shekhar
    Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Dobromir Rahnev
    Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  National Institute of Health (award: R01MH119189), Office of Naval Research (award: N00014-20-1-2622)
Journal of Vision August 2023, Vol.23, 5541. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5541
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kai Xue, Medha Shekhar, Dobromir Rahnev; Falsifying the Bayesian confidence hypothesis. Journal of Vision 2023;23(9):5541. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5541.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

The Bayesian confidence hypothesis, which postulates that confidence reflects the posterior probability that a decision is correct, is currently the most prominent theory of confidence. Although several recent studies have found evidence against a strictly Bayesian account in the context of relatively complex tasks, the Bayesian confidence hypothesis remains dominant for simpler tasks. However, confidence could instead reflect a simpler distance-to-criterion computation where confidence is determined by the distance between the sensory evidence and the decision criterion. Here, we uncover a basic behavioral signature that distinguishes Bayesian from distance-to-criterion models for simple 2-choice tasks. Specifically, if confidence reflects the probability of being correct, then confidence criteria in conditions of varying difficulty should have constant log odds but differ in evidence space. Alternatively, if confidence follows a distance-to-criterion computation, then confidence criteria in conditions of varying difficulty should be fixed in evidence space but have different log odds. We examined this signature in three different datasets, including two that have previously been used to support the Bayesian confidence hypothesis. All three datasets exhibited behavioral signatures in line with distance-to-criterion but contrary to Bayesian computations. We further performed extensive comparison of 32 models that implemented either Bayesian or distance-to-criterion confidence computations and systematically differed in their auxiliary assumptions. These model comparisons provided overwhelming support for the distance-to-criterion models over their Bayesian counterparts across all model variants and across all three datasets. Specifically, distance-to-criterion models had average AIC values 110.2, 68.1, and 70.2 points lower than Bayesian models across the three experiments, respectively. Finally, we traced the discrepancy with previous results supporting the Bayesian model to the details of the fitting procedure and also uncovered a previously unappreciated mimicry between metacognitive noise and lapse rate parameters. These observations falsify the Bayesian confidence hypothesis and bring important insights into many components of confidence computations.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×