temporal dynamics of meta-cognition in a continuous …msl/posters/lockeetal17b.pdf · 2017. 9....
TRANSCRIPT
TEMPORAL DYNAMICS OF META-COGNITIONIN A CONTINUOUS VISUOMOTOR TASK
Shannon M. Locke 1 - Michael S. Landy 1,2 - Pascal Mamassian 4 - Eero P. Simoncelli 1,2,3
New York University, NY: (1) Dept. of Psychology, (2) Center for Neural Science, (3) Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences;(4) Laboratoire des Systemes Perceptifs, CNRS UMR 8248, Departement d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France
DÉPARTEMENTD’ÉTUDESCOGNITIVES
Exp. 1 Summary
Even in simple perceptual tasks, humans may rely onheuristics to assign confidence1,2. Yet, in a complexsensorimotor tracking task we found participants
monitored error (sub-optimally) to judge confidence.
Exp. 2 Summary
A robust recency e↵ect in the weighting of trackingerror was replicated when trial duration was uncertain.This result could be due to lossy accumulation of theerror signal or use of memory in assigning confidence.
Methods
1. track random-walk stimulus
target*
1 SD cursor
Dynamic Visual Localization With Moving Dot CloudsShannon M. Locke 1 - Michael S. Landy 1,2 - Pascal Mamassian 4 - Eero P. Simoncelli 1,2,3
New York University, NY: (1) Department of Psychology, (2) Center for Neural Science, (3) Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences;(4) Laboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, CNRS UMR 8248, Département d’Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France
1. Task 2. Performance 3. Confidence
Acknowledgements: NSF BCS-1430262 Correspondence: [email protected]
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
in temporal averaging and motor constraints, it is not possible to estimate motor noise
just yet and analysis will be restricted to the computational lag.
Results & Discussion
A cross-correlation analysis was performed to determine the lag between the target lo-
cation and the cursor placement for every single trial. The cross-correlation values were
normalised to produce a correlation coe�cient by subtracting the mean and dividing by
the standard deviation for each lag value examined. Cross-correlograms were first av-
eraged within subjects, with the peak used as the estimate of the subject’s preferred
tracking lag, � , for the model fitting(see Figure 4a). Averaging these cross-correlograms
indicates that normal, healthy adult is expected to have a � of approximately 400 ms.
Shown in Figure 4b is the distribution of peak lags across trials for each subject. The
histograms are all positively skewed and resemble those observed for reaction times in
traditional psychophysics tasks (Usher & McClelland, 2001). However, a one-sample t-
test on the Pearson moment coe�cient of skewness for each subject’s sample of peak lags
did not reveal a significant e�ect (t(4)=2.24 , p = 0.09). This result is not unexpected
given the small sample size of this pilot experiment. Subjects are encouraged by the
points system of the experiment to track the target quickly, but doing so may reduce
�2 0 20.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
400 ms lag
Tracking Lag (sec)
Cor
rela
tion
(A)
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80
5
10
15
20
Peak Tracking Lag (sec)
Per
cent
(B)
Figure 4: A) Mean cross-correlations for individual subjects (black) and averaged across sub-jects (red). Peak lag for the red trace is 400 ms. B) Individual histograms showing the percentof traces with a particular peak lag (smoothed with a Gaussian filter with sd= 20 ms).
Page 17
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
10
20
30�c = 67ms
Peak Tracking Lag (sec)
Per
cent
cloudtarget
Figure 5: A comparison of the lag in tracking for one subject in a task where the target isinferred from the dot cloud (“cloud”, blue), and a task where the target is visible (“target”,orange). The dashed lines indicate peak of the mean cross-correlation from each of the tasks.The distance between these peaks corresponds to the time to compute the centroid, �centroid
(abbr. in figure), assuming that temporal lag due to sensory processing and motor executionare the same in both tasks.
the accuracy of their tracking for various reasons such as reduced time in estimating the
centroid or planning and executing a movement. Therefore, peak tracking time may be a
useful measure of speed in a speed-accuracy trade-o� analysis. Current attempts at this
analysis suggest that more data needs to be collected.
The same cross-correlation analysis was applied to the tracking data from the task
where the target was made visible (see Figure 5). As expected, the peak lag for the ex-
plicit target experiment is lower than for the peak lag for the experiment requiring the
subject to infer target location from the dot cloud. This indicates the subject takes ap-
proximately 70 ms to compute the centroid of the dot cloud and 300 ms to both process
the sensory information and execute a movement. Another noticeable di�erence between
the two distributions of peak lags is that the target visible distribution has a smaller vari-
ance, indicating that computing the centroid contributes considerably to the variability
in tracking delays. Viewing the results in another way, one could say that decreasing the
di�culty of the task by providing the target’s true location led to faster responses. This is
consistent with traditional decision-making experiments (Gold & Shadlen, 2007). Further
experiments are needed to see if manipulating the quality of the sensory information in
the dot cloud (i.e. the number of dots) will similarly a�ect tracking lag.
Tracking behaviour was first compared to the standard Kalman filter described in
Page 18
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
1 2 3 4 50
1
2
3
4
Standard Kalman Filter
Subject
RM
SE
(deg
)
Human TrackingLagged Kalman Filter
(A)
1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3
Subject
�R
MSE
(deg
)
Standard Kalman FilterLagged Kalman Filter
(B)
Figure 6: Comparison of errors as compared to the true target location for 1) the actual trackingbehaviour of the subject, 2) the unadjusted Kalman filter, and 3) a Kalman filter lagged by thesubject’s peak tracking lag. Error bars and shaded error region represent the 95% confidenceintervals.
Part 2. This model is equivalent to a human that has no temporal averaging or internal
sensory noise and can instantaneously place the cursor on the estimated target location
without any motor noise. Figure 6a shows that the human performance is approximately
three times worse than this model when assessed in terms of the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE). If, however, the output of this Kalman filter is shifted by � estimate of the
corresponding subject, the performance is indistinguishable from that of the human4. It
is unlikely that more tracking trial will reduce the spread of errors as Subject 1 in the plot
completed 2.5 times more trials than the other subjects. Figure 6b plots the di�erence
between the subject’s tracking and the two models on a per trial basis. Again, it is not
possible to di�erentiate the lagged Kalman filter and human performance. This suggests
adding in the additional components of the model may be tricky if RMSE is used as the
metric of fit.
To conclude, a lagged version of the standard Kalman filter did very well at fitting
human performance. The average tracking lag was very consistent across subjects, and
the distributions of peak tracking lag tended to follow the pattern observed for reaction
times in non-tracking experiments.
4Do you think it is a problem I am using the same sequences to estimate tracking lag and assess thefit of the model?
Page 19
Part 2. Modelling Approach
This section outlines the development of a Bayesian ideal observer model for a tracking
task where subjects track a moving cloud of dots as moves along a one-dimensional ran-
dom walk trajectory (see Figure 1). We selected the Kalman filter, which is the optimal
recursive linear estimator suited to dynamic environments assuming all noise in the sys-
tem is Gaussian. This is the “decision” component of the model. The Kalman filter is
biologically plausible is because it does not require infinite memory, yet considers every
piece of sensory evidence given.
The decision, “where to move next?”, is answered by this model, but requires realistic
inputs and outputs. We consider several human perception factors that act on the sensory
input and motor outputs, as well as modify variables in the decision-making machinery. A
schematic diagram of the final model is shown at the end of this section (Figure 3). This
model gives, for a particular sensory input, the ideal tracking performance achievable.
(A)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
�10
0
10
Time (sec)
Tar
get
µt(d
eg)
(B)
Figure 1: A) Example of a single display frame. White dots are sampled from a 2D Gaussiandistribution (red dot indicates mean and dashed line shows 1 SD, both not visible to subjects).Black dot is the cursor position as set by the subject. B) An example horizontal random-walktrajectory of the target.
6
Part
2.
Model
ling
Appro
ach
This
sect
ion
outl
ines
the
dev
elop
men
tof
aB
ayes
ian
idea
lob
serv
erm
odel
for
atr
acki
ng
task
wher
esu
bje
cts
trac
ka
mov
ing
clou
dof
dot
sas
mov
esal
ong
aon
e-dim
ensi
onal
ran-
dom
wal
ktr
aje
ctor
y(s
eeFig
ure
1).
We
sele
cted
the
Kal
man
filt
er,w
hic
his
the
opti
mal
recu
rsiv
elinea
res
tim
ator
suit
edto
dyn
amic
envi
ronm
ents
assu
min
gal
lnoi
sein
the
sys-
tem
isG
auss
ian.
This
isth
e“d
ecis
ion”
com
pon
ent
ofth
em
odel
.T
he
Kal
man
filt
eris
bio
logi
cally
pla
usi
ble
isbec
ause
itdoe
snot
requ
ire
infinit
em
emor
y,ye
tco
nsi
der
sev
ery
pie
ceof
senso
ryev
iden
cegi
ven.
The
dec
isio
n,“w
her
eto
mov
enex
t?”,
isan
swer
edby
this
mod
el,but
requ
ires
real
isti
c
inputs
and
outp
uts
.W
eco
nsi
der
seve
ralh
um
anper
cepti
onfa
ctor
sth
atac
ton
the
senso
ry
inputan
dm
otor
outp
uts
,as
wel
lasm
odify
vari
able
sin
the
dec
isio
n-m
akin
gm
achin
ery.
A
schem
atic
dia
gram
ofth
efinal
mod
elis
show
nat
the
end
ofth
isse
ctio
n(F
igure
3).
This
mod
elgi
ves,
for
apar
ticu
lar
senso
ryin
put,
the
idea
ltr
acki
ng
per
form
ance
achie
vable
.
(A)
02
46
810
1214
1618
20
�10010
Tim
e(s
ec)
Targetµt(deg)
(B)
Fig
ure
1:A
)E
xam
ple
ofa
singl
edis
pla
yfr
ame.
Whit
edot
sar
esa
mple
dfr
oma
2DG
auss
ian
dis
trib
uti
on(r
eddot
indic
ates
mea
nan
ddas
hed
line
show
s1
SD
,bot
hnot
visi
ble
tosu
bje
cts)
.B
lack
dot
isth
ecu
rsor
pos
itio
nas
set
byth
esu
bje
ct.B
)A
nex
ample
hor
izon
talra
ndom
-wal
ktr
aje
ctor
yof
the
targ
et.
6
Mean cross-correlograms of target and cursor:
subject’s appear to lag behind the stimulus by 400
ms (add legend). Human error versus model error:
Applying temporal lag to a Kalman filter Oh look, simple Kalman filter with
temporal lag does a good job at explaining
error (difference is between human and
model). (make fill versus no fill)Control experiment (tracking
visible target): Tracking lag not just motor response time, reflects something about computation (CCG). Include tracking lag
distribution for standard non-lagged model (simulations), this
shows the contribution of the exponential decay weighting
function to lag.
Result 1: ROC curves: show all Ss on plot, mean area (SEM) AUROC. Oh
look, there appears to be meta-cognitive
sensitivity going on!
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
127226
387741
906998
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Mean Subtracted RMSE (deg)
Den
sity conf
HighLow
Metacognitive Sensitivity
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
0102030
0102030
0102030
0102030
0102030
0102030
127226
387741
906998
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Mean Subtracted RMSE (deg)
Cou
nt
confHighLow
Metacognitive Sensitivity
Figure 2.3: ...
15
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0127
226387
741906
998
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Mean Subtracted RMSE (deg)
Den
sity conf
HighLow
Metacognitive Sensitivity
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
0102030
0102030
0102030
0102030
0102030
0102030
127226
387741
906998
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Mean Subtracted RMSE (deg)
Cou
nt
confHighLow
Metacognitive Sensitivity
Figure 2.3: ...
15
mean subtracted RMSE
# re
spon
ses
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
A = 0.59
A = 0.78
A = 0.6
A = 0.67
A = 0.79
A = 0.76
A = 0.6
A = 0.68
A = 0.72
A = 0.63
A = 0.83
A = 0.72
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
127226
387741
906998
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00P(Low Conf)
P(Hi
gh C
onf)
ROC Analysis of Metacognitive Sensitivity
Figure 2.4: Metacognitive ROC curves were computed non-parametrically (i.e. using the raw data)for each observer in each condition. The area under the curve was also computed non-parametricallyusing the trapezoidal method detailed in Macmillan and Creelman (2005) on pg. 64. An area of 0.5,or a curve that falls along the dashed line, indicates no metacognitive sensitivity. An area of 1, or acurve that follows the left and top border, indicates the upper limit of metacognitive sensitivity.
16
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
A = 0.59
A = 0.78
A = 0.6
A = 0.67
A = 0.79
A = 0.76
A = 0.6
A = 0.68
A = 0.72
A = 0.63
A = 0.83
A = 0.72
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
127226
387741
906998
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00P(Low Conf)
P(Hi
gh C
onf)
ROC Analysis of Metacognitive Sensitivity
Figure 2.4: Metacognitive ROC curves were computed non-parametrically (i.e. using the raw data)for each observer in each condition. The area under the curve was also computed non-parametricallyusing the trapezoidal method detailed in Macmillan and Creelman (2005) on pg. 64. An area of 0.5,or a curve that falls along the dashed line, indicates no metacognitive sensitivity. An area of 1, or acurve that follows the left and top border, indicates the upper limit of metacognitive sensitivity.
16
Variable Sensory SD Variable Walk SD
A = 0.59
A = 0.78
A = 0.6
A = 0.67
A = 0.79
A = 0.76
A = 0.6
A = 0.68
A = 0.72
A = 0.63
A = 0.83
A = 0.72
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
127226
387741
906998
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00P(Low Conf)
P(Hi
gh C
onf)
ROC Analysis of Metacognitive Sensitivity
Figure 2.4: Metacognitive ROC curves were computed non-parametrically (i.e. using the raw data)for each observer in each condition. The area under the curve was also computed non-parametricallyusing the trapezoidal method detailed in Macmillan and Creelman (2005) on pg. 64. An area of 0.5,or a curve that falls along the dashed line, indicates no metacognitive sensitivity. An area of 1, or acurve that follows the left and top border, indicates the upper limit of metacognitive sensitivity.
16
A = 0.70 +/- 0.04 A = 0.70 +/- 0.03
Secon
dY
earPap
er25
thSep
tember
2016
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
in the following manner1
ct =
����
���
0 + �motor, if t � � � 0
xt�� + �motor, otherwise
(9)
We can estimate � by finding the delay which produces the highest correlation between
target location and mouse cursor in the tracking task. A simple addition to the main
tracking task, however, can reveal more about these temporal delays as well as provide
a way to estimate motor noise. If we place a dot at the true position of the target,
identifiable by its red colour, and ask subjects to track this dot and ignore white dot
cloud, we have removed the centroid computation step. The delay with the highest
target-cursor correlation could be expressed as
�visible = �sensory + �motor (10)
Thus, the di�erence in temporal lag between having the target invisible or not tells us
the time subjects are using to compute the centroid of the dot cloud2
�centroid = �invisible � �visible (11)
Additionally, we can computed the RMSE in tracking behaviour in the target visible
experiment, after shifting the cursor trace by �visible, as an estimate of �motor. The corre-
sponding RMSE in the main task would also include error in estimating the target, which
is why we wouldn’t use it to estimate motor noise.
1I haven’t thought of a good way to express the cursor placement prior to acting on sensory information.Subjects will have to place the cursor at the center of the screen (with some small spatial tolerance) soit should be around 0, but then they might move it about a bit, and then of course those movements arenot independent of each other...
2I’m not entirely convinced if this is correct. In this version of the task �dot = 0, and so the Kalmangain will be di�erent in the sense they will move closer to their estimate than in the version where thetarget is invisible. Would this correspond to a di�erent lag?
Page 6
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
Temporal Averaging
Dot clouds are presented very rapidly in the tracking task. The perceptual consequence
of this is that several dot clouds will appear on the screen together due to the temporal
averaging of the visual system. I can imagine modelling this using a temporal weighting
function which includes the previous dot locations in the computation of the centroid.
Let’s begin by redefining the centroid computation
gt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(12)
zt =
t�t�
i=0
�wigt�i�t
�(13)
where �t is the time step of the sampling and wi is the weight from the temporal weighting
function and must be such thatt
�t�
i=0
wi = 1 (14)
The first weighting function we will consider is one where all dots which appear to be
simultaneously presented on the screen are given equal weight (i.e. a step function):
wi =
����
���
1�blur�t , if i�t � �blur
0, otherwise
(15)
where �blur is the length of time over which the stimulus is temporally averaged. Alterna-
tive temporal weighting functions would weight dots according to when they where first
presented. For example, this could be done using a Gaussian function wi � N(0, �blur).
Another possibility is an exponential function, but this seems like it would be hard to
disentangle from the operation of the Kalman filter itself.
Page 7
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
Temporal Averaging
Dot clouds are presented very rapidly in the tracking task. The perceptual consequence
of this is that several dot clouds will appear on the screen together due to the temporal
averaging of the visual system. I can imagine modelling this using a temporal weighting
function which includes the previous dot locations in the computation of the centroid.
Let’s begin by redefining the centroid computation
gt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(12)
zt =
t�t�
i=0
�wigt�i�t
�(13)
where �t is the time step of the sampling and wi is the weight from the temporal weighting
function and must be such thatt
�t�
i=0
wi = 1 (14)
The first weighting function we will consider is one where all dots which appear to be
simultaneously presented on the screen are given equal weight (i.e. a step function):
wi =
����
���
1�blur�t , if i�t � �blur
0, otherwise
(15)
where �blur is the length of time over which the stimulus is temporally averaged. Alterna-
tive temporal weighting functions would weight dots according to when they where first
presented. For example, this could be done using a Gaussian function wi � N(0, �blur).
Another possibility is an exponential function, but this seems like it would be hard to
disentangle from the operation of the Kalman filter itself.
Page 7
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
target via computing the centroid would be corrupted by Gaussian noise as follows
zt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(6)
where �internal � N(0, �internal), and the Kalman gain would also include the internal noise
in addition to the external noise from the dot cloud
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud + �2internal
(7)
Motor Noise
In addition to the spatial blurring of the input caused by internal noise, there will also
be spatial blurring of the output due to motor noise. That is, the cursor ct is placed
at the target’s estimated location, but the movement is corrupted by Gaussian noise
�motor � N(0, �motor):
ct = xt + �motor (8)
An experiment that would provide an estimate of �motor is described in the next section.
Temporal Delays
It should be obvious that the cursor is not placed instantaneously on the target estimate
as soon as the dot cloud is displayed but after some time has elapsed. This temporal
lag, � , is likely the sum of several delays relating to the sensory acquisition of the display,
�sensory; computing the centroid of the dot cloud, �centroid; and the delay in formulating,
sending, and executing a motor plan, �motor. We can update equation 8 to reflect this lag
Page 5
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
SENSORY: DECISION MAKING: MOTOR:
compute centroidexecute movement
compute Kalman gainupdate error term
update estimate
priors
Figure 3: A schematic of the proposed Kalman filter model for tracking. The three components are: 1) gathering sensory evidence to estimatetarget location; 2) deciding where to move next; and finally, 3) executing the movement of the computer mouse to the intended location.
Page
14
Secon
dY
earPap
er25
thSep
tember
2016
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
in the following manner1
ct =
����
���
0 + �motor, if t � � � 0
xt�� + �motor, otherwise
(9)
We can estimate � by finding the delay which produces the highest correlation between
target location and mouse cursor in the tracking task. A simple addition to the main
tracking task, however, can reveal more about these temporal delays as well as provide
a way to estimate motor noise. If we place a dot at the true position of the target,
identifiable by its red colour, and ask subjects to track this dot and ignore white dot
cloud, we have removed the centroid computation step. The delay with the highest
target-cursor correlation could be expressed as
�visible = �sensory + �motor (10)
Thus, the di�erence in temporal lag between having the target invisible or not tells us
the time subjects are using to compute the centroid of the dot cloud2
�centroid = �invisible � �visible (11)
Additionally, we can computed the RMSE in tracking behaviour in the target visible
experiment, after shifting the cursor trace by �visible, as an estimate of �motor. The corre-
sponding RMSE in the main task would also include error in estimating the target, which
is why we wouldn’t use it to estimate motor noise.
1I haven’t thought of a good way to express the cursor placement prior to acting on sensory information.Subjects will have to place the cursor at the center of the screen (with some small spatial tolerance) soit should be around 0, but then they might move it about a bit, and then of course those movements arenot independent of each other...
2I’m not entirely convinced if this is correct. In this version of the task �dot = 0, and so the Kalmangain will be di�erent in the sense they will move closer to their estimate than in the version where thetarget is invisible. Would this correspond to a di�erent lag?
Page 6
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
Temporal Averaging
Dot clouds are presented very rapidly in the tracking task. The perceptual consequence
of this is that several dot clouds will appear on the screen together due to the temporal
averaging of the visual system. I can imagine modelling this using a temporal weighting
function which includes the previous dot locations in the computation of the centroid.
Let’s begin by redefining the centroid computation
gt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(12)
zt =
t�t�
i=0
�wigt�i�t
�(13)
where �t is the time step of the sampling and wi is the weight from the temporal weighting
function and must be such thatt
�t�
i=0
wi = 1 (14)
The first weighting function we will consider is one where all dots which appear to be
simultaneously presented on the screen are given equal weight (i.e. a step function):
wi =
����
���
1�blur�t , if i�t � �blur
0, otherwise
(15)
where �blur is the length of time over which the stimulus is temporally averaged. Alterna-
tive temporal weighting functions would weight dots according to when they where first
presented. For example, this could be done using a Gaussian function wi � N(0, �blur).
Another possibility is an exponential function, but this seems like it would be hard to
disentangle from the operation of the Kalman filter itself.
Page 7
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
Temporal Averaging
Dot clouds are presented very rapidly in the tracking task. The perceptual consequence
of this is that several dot clouds will appear on the screen together due to the temporal
averaging of the visual system. I can imagine modelling this using a temporal weighting
function which includes the previous dot locations in the computation of the centroid.
Let’s begin by redefining the centroid computation
gt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(12)
zt =
t�t�
i=0
�wigt�i�t
�(13)
where �t is the time step of the sampling and wi is the weight from the temporal weighting
function and must be such thatt
�t�
i=0
wi = 1 (14)
The first weighting function we will consider is one where all dots which appear to be
simultaneously presented on the screen are given equal weight (i.e. a step function):
wi =
����
���
1�blur�t , if i�t � �blur
0, otherwise
(15)
where �blur is the length of time over which the stimulus is temporally averaged. Alterna-
tive temporal weighting functions would weight dots according to when they where first
presented. For example, this could be done using a Gaussian function wi � N(0, �blur).
Another possibility is an exponential function, but this seems like it would be hard to
disentangle from the operation of the Kalman filter itself.
Page 7
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
target via computing the centroid would be corrupted by Gaussian noise as follows
zt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(6)
where �internal � N(0, �internal), and the Kalman gain would also include the internal noise
in addition to the external noise from the dot cloud
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud + �2internal
(7)
Motor Noise
In addition to the spatial blurring of the input caused by internal noise, there will also
be spatial blurring of the output due to motor noise. That is, the cursor ct is placed
at the target’s estimated location, but the movement is corrupted by Gaussian noise
�motor � N(0, �motor):
ct = xt + �motor (8)
An experiment that would provide an estimate of �motor is described in the next section.
Temporal Delays
It should be obvious that the cursor is not placed instantaneously on the target estimate
as soon as the dot cloud is displayed but after some time has elapsed. This temporal
lag, � , is likely the sum of several delays relating to the sensory acquisition of the display,
�sensory; computing the centroid of the dot cloud, �centroid; and the delay in formulating,
sending, and executing a motor plan, �motor. We can update equation 8 to reflect this lag
Page 5
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
SENSORY: DECISION MAKING: MOTOR:
compute centroidexecute movement
compute Kalman gainupdate error term
update estimate
priors
Figure 3: A schematic of the proposed Kalman filter model for tracking. The three components are: 1) gathering sensory evidence to estimatetarget location; 2) deciding where to move next; and finally, 3) executing the movement of the computer mouse to the intended location.
Page
14
0 200 400 600 800 10000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Wei
ght
Time in the Past (ms)
Secon
dY
earPap
er25
thSep
tember
2016
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
in the following manner1
ct =
����
���
0 + �motor, if t � � � 0
xt�� + �motor, otherwise
(9)
We can estimate � by finding the delay which produces the highest correlation between
target location and mouse cursor in the tracking task. A simple addition to the main
tracking task, however, can reveal more about these temporal delays as well as provide
a way to estimate motor noise. If we place a dot at the true position of the target,
identifiable by its red colour, and ask subjects to track this dot and ignore white dot
cloud, we have removed the centroid computation step. The delay with the highest
target-cursor correlation could be expressed as
�visible = �sensory + �motor (10)
Thus, the di�erence in temporal lag between having the target invisible or not tells us
the time subjects are using to compute the centroid of the dot cloud2
�centroid = �invisible � �visible (11)
Additionally, we can computed the RMSE in tracking behaviour in the target visible
experiment, after shifting the cursor trace by �visible, as an estimate of �motor. The corre-
sponding RMSE in the main task would also include error in estimating the target, which
is why we wouldn’t use it to estimate motor noise.
1I haven’t thought of a good way to express the cursor placement prior to acting on sensory information.Subjects will have to place the cursor at the center of the screen (with some small spatial tolerance) soit should be around 0, but then they might move it about a bit, and then of course those movements arenot independent of each other...
2I’m not entirely convinced if this is correct. In this version of the task �dot = 0, and so the Kalmangain will be di�erent in the sense they will move closer to their estimate than in the version where thetarget is invisible. Would this correspond to a di�erent lag?
Page 6
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
Temporal Averaging
Dot clouds are presented very rapidly in the tracking task. The perceptual consequence
of this is that several dot clouds will appear on the screen together due to the temporal
averaging of the visual system. I can imagine modelling this using a temporal weighting
function which includes the previous dot locations in the computation of the centroid.
Let’s begin by redefining the centroid computation
gt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(12)
zt =
t�t�
i=0
�wigt�i�t
�(13)
where �t is the time step of the sampling and wi is the weight from the temporal weighting
function and must be such thatt
�t�
i=0
wi = 1 (14)
The first weighting function we will consider is one where all dots which appear to be
simultaneously presented on the screen are given equal weight (i.e. a step function):
wi =
����
���
1�blur�t , if i�t � �blur
0, otherwise
(15)
where �blur is the length of time over which the stimulus is temporally averaged. Alterna-
tive temporal weighting functions would weight dots according to when they where first
presented. For example, this could be done using a Gaussian function wi � N(0, �blur).
Another possibility is an exponential function, but this seems like it would be hard to
disentangle from the operation of the Kalman filter itself.
Page 7
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
Temporal Averaging
Dot clouds are presented very rapidly in the tracking task. The perceptual consequence
of this is that several dot clouds will appear on the screen together due to the temporal
averaging of the visual system. I can imagine modelling this using a temporal weighting
function which includes the previous dot locations in the computation of the centroid.
Let’s begin by redefining the centroid computation
gt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(12)
zt =
t�t�
i=0
�wigt�i�t
�(13)
where �t is the time step of the sampling and wi is the weight from the temporal weighting
function and must be such thatt
�t�
i=0
wi = 1 (14)
The first weighting function we will consider is one where all dots which appear to be
simultaneously presented on the screen are given equal weight (i.e. a step function):
wi =
����
���
1�blur�t , if i�t � �blur
0, otherwise
(15)
where �blur is the length of time over which the stimulus is temporally averaged. Alterna-
tive temporal weighting functions would weight dots according to when they where first
presented. For example, this could be done using a Gaussian function wi � N(0, �blur).
Another possibility is an exponential function, but this seems like it would be hard to
disentangle from the operation of the Kalman filter itself.
Page 7
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
target via computing the centroid would be corrupted by Gaussian noise as follows
zt =1
J
J�
j=1
�djt + �internal
�(6)
where �internal � N(0, �internal), and the Kalman gain would also include the internal noise
in addition to the external noise from the dot cloud
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud + �2internal
(7)
Motor Noise
In addition to the spatial blurring of the input caused by internal noise, there will also
be spatial blurring of the output due to motor noise. That is, the cursor ct is placed
at the target’s estimated location, but the movement is corrupted by Gaussian noise
�motor � N(0, �motor):
ct = xt + �motor (8)
An experiment that would provide an estimate of �motor is described in the next section.
Temporal Delays
It should be obvious that the cursor is not placed instantaneously on the target estimate
as soon as the dot cloud is displayed but after some time has elapsed. This temporal
lag, � , is likely the sum of several delays relating to the sensory acquisition of the display,
�sensory; computing the centroid of the dot cloud, �centroid; and the delay in formulating,
sending, and executing a motor plan, �motor. We can update equation 8 to reflect this lag
Page 5
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
Second Year Paper 25th September 2016
the Kalman filter is supplied with a prior estimate x0 = 0 and the associated error
covariance P0 = 0, which will be updated as measurements are made.
In the one-dimensional case of horizontal tracking, the Kalman gain is simply
Kt =Pt�1 + �2
walk
Pt�1 + �2walk + �2
cloud
(2)
where �cloud is the standard deviation of the generating Gaussian distribution for dot
locations and �walk is the standard deviation in the random walk. This Kalman gain term
describes the previous estimate of target location, xt�1, is combined with the incoming
measurements to update the estimate of target location xt:
xt = xt�1 + Kt(zt � xt�1) (3)
With each iteration of the Kalman filter loop, the error covariance term, Pt, is updated
as follows
Pt = (1 � Kt)(Pt�1 + �2walk) (4)
Internal Sensory Noise
The dots presented in the task are intentionally high contrast, so the subjects will be
easily able to identify their locations. However, it is still likely that internal sensory noise
is also contributing to tracking behaviour. This can be estimated in a simple 2IFC visual
discrimination task, where two dots are sequentially presented and subjects have to judge
if the second dot was to the left or right of the first. The internal sensory noise estimate
would be calculated from the Just Noticeable Di�erence (JND)
�internal =JND�
2(5)
We could adjust the Kalman filter modifying equations 1 and 2. The estimate of the
Page 4
SENSORY: DECISION MAKING: MOTOR:
compute centroidexecute movement
compute Kalman gainupdate error term
update estimate
priors
Figure 3: A schematic of the proposed Kalman filter model for tracking. The three components are: 1) gathering sensory evidence to estimatetarget location; 2) deciding where to move next; and finally, 3) executing the movement of the computer mouse to the intended location.
Page
14
position or velocity
Dots drawn independently
from 2D Gaussian every frame
(17ms).
Moving dot cloud stimulus:
Follows a !random walk:
Colour scheme: target (red), cursor (), mean across Ss (red), high conf (purple), low conf (pink)
●
●
●
●
●
●
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Variable Sensory SD
Varia
ble
Wal
k SD
A Comparison of AUROC values
2AFC Confidence Task: “Do you think your performance
was better or worse than average?”
Number of dots: 3 Cloud SD: …
Tracking duration: 20 sec
Tracking Task Experiment 1: Tracking Behaviour Experiment 2: Confidence
Number of dots: 3 Cloud SD: …(obvious) Walk SD: … (subtle)
Tracking duration: 20 sec
Motivation box?
Result 2: No difference in sensitivity even though one cue is obvious and
one is subtle.
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 40
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Target Position (deg)
Prop
ortio
n of
Rig
htw
ard
Judg
emen
ts
PFbyConf: sID = 690, nDots = 5, cloudSD = 2.5
Num
ber o
f Tria
ls
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
80Low ConfHigh Conf
Static : ROC curves: show all Ss on plot, mean area (SEM) AUROC. Oh look,
there appears to be meta-cognitive
sensitivity going on!
Optimal Kalman !Filter Model:!!
assumes knowledge of sensory and walk variance, weights previous sensory evidence according to an
exponential weighting function.
* target invisbleto observer
Time
Horizontal
Target
Velocity
2. report confidence
Relative to all trials in this session,do you think your performancein the current trial was better
or worse than average?
“better” ! high conf.“worse” ! low conf.
Exp. 1:di�culty manipulation
cloud size:(obvious), session A
5 levels, 1 – 3�
Target
Velocity
velocity stability:(subtle), session B5 levels, 0.05 – 0.25�/sec
Exp. 2:duration manipulation
trial length: 6, 10, or 14 sec
(tracking after 2 sec counted towards score)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
cursor change
Exp. 1 Results
RMSE
Low Conf.P(RMSE|“worse”)
High Conf.P(RMSE|“better”) av
g.
0.5 0.75 1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1(n = 7)
Area = 0.71± 0.03
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1(n = 7)
Area = 0.74± 0.04
Cumulative P(RMSE|“worse”)
Cumulative
P(R
MSE|“better”) Variable Cloud Size Variable Velocity Stability
Meta-cognitive sensitivity is comparable for obvious &subtle di�culty manipulations, indicating participantsmonitored their tracking error to determine confidence
rather than relying on cues to trial di�culty.
Separation of the highand low confidenceerror distributionsindicates meta-
cognitive sensitivity.Index: the area underthe quantile-quantilecurve (like ROC).
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.5
0.6
0.7
Time in Trial (sec)
AreaUnder
Curve
Late error better predictor ofconfidence. Both optimal anddi�culty-heuristic strategies
predict flat functions.Can we encourage more equal
weighting of error withtemporal uncertainty?
Exp. 2 Results
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1(n = 7)
Area = 0.69± 0.03
Cumulative P(RMSE|“worse”)Cumulative
P(R
MSE|“better”)
Similar meta-cognitivesensitivity observed whentracking di�culty is notexplicitly manipulated,supporting Exp. 1 resultthat participants monitor
their tracking errorto judge confidence.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.5
0.6
0.7 6 sec
10 sec 14 sec
Time in Trial (sec)
AreaUnder
CurveTemporal uncertainty did
not encourage more equalweighting of error over
time. Is the recency e↵ectthe only component ofthe weighting function?
Modelling:1. Internal Error Signal
Time
Weight
Model 1: Optimal
Time
Weight
Model 2: Recency E↵ect
Time
Weight
Model 3: Combined Model 4: Max Error
Weighted/Max Error
P(L
owConf)
2. Decision Linking Function
high ! “better”
low conf. ! “worse”
No. Our results arebest fit by a modelwhere error after 2sec counts, but errorclose to confidence
report is over-weighted.
Model Comparison (AIC scores):
M1 M2 M3 M4
Subject
param.model
(k = 2) (k = 3) (k = 5) (k = 2)
876 893 869 867
850 855 785 852
760 764 731 801
769 901 761 776
886 879 870 871
795 801 756 798
References: 1. Barthelme & Mamassian (2010) PNAS2. de Gardelle & Mamassian (2015) PLoS ONE
Funding: NSF BCS-1430262, Correspondence: [email protected]