- Oral presentation
- Open Access
Trial-by-trial modeling of electrophysiological signals during inverse Bayesian inference
BMC Neuroscience volume 15, Article number: O8 (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  and OST ).
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  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  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].
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-
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.
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.
Hoijtink H: Informative Hypotheses: theory and practice for behavioral and social scientists. 2012, New York: CRC Press
Kahneman D, Tversky A: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979, 47: 263-291. 10.2307/1914185.
Tversky A, Kahneman D: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992, 5: 297-323. 10.1007/BF00122574.
About this article
Cite this article
Kolossa, A., Kopp, B. & Fingscheidt, T. Trial-by-trial modeling of electrophysiological signals during inverse Bayesian inference. BMC Neurosci 15, O8 (2014). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1471-2202-15-S1-O8
- Bayesian Inference
- Bayesian Model
- Prospect Theory
- Tops Model
- Electrophysiological Measure