Attention as Rational Choice

doi:10.1017/9781009026949.011

Chapter 10 - Attention as Rational Choice

from Part III - Which Machinery Supports the Drive for Knowledge?

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 May 2022

Jacqueline Gottlieb

Edited by

Irene Cogliati Dezza ,

Eric Schulz and

Charley M. Wu

Show author details

Irene Cogliati Dezza: Affiliation:
University College London
Eric Schulz: Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für biologische Kybernetik, Tübingen
Charley M. Wu: Affiliation:
Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Germany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

I argue for a new operationalization of attention as a process of information selection that is endogenous, rather than exogenous, to decision-makers’ goals and constraints. Traditional accounts postulate that attention is captured in a “bottom-up” fashion by external sensory stimuli or in a “top-down” fashion by external experimental instructions. In contrast, recent studies of information-demand provide a powerful alternative view whereby attention is allocated endogenously to serve a decision-maker’s goals, and is subject to the decision-maker’s knowledge, biases, and constraints. I review neurophysiological evidence supporting this view, with a focus on optimal and potentially suboptimal forms of attention allocation aimed to reduce uncertainty and enhance reward gains.

Keywords

Information selection attention neurons top-down cost–benefit

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Drive for Knowledge
The Science of Human Information Seeking
, pp. 217 - 236

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009026949.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(8), 437–443.Google Scholar

Bisley, J. W., & Goldberg, M. E. (2010). Attention, intention, and priority in the parietal lobe. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 1–21.Google Scholar

Callaway, F., Rangel, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling. PLoS Comp Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008863.Google Scholar

Carrasco, M., Eckstein, M., Verghese, P., Boynton, G., & Treue, S. (2009). Visual attention: Neurophysiology, psychophysics and cognitive neuroscience. Vision Research, 49(10), 1033–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.04.022.Google Scholar

Charpentier, C. J., Bromberg-Martin, E. S., & Sharot, , T., S. (2018). Valuation of knowledge and ignorance in mesolimbic reward circuitry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America., 115(31), E7255-E7264.Google Scholar

Coenen, A., Nelson, J. D., & Gureckis, T. M. (2018). Asking the right questions about the psychology of human inquiry: Nine open challenges. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Jun. 4. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018–1470–5. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Daddaoua, N., Lopes, M., & Gottlieb, J. (2016). Intrinsically motivated oculomotor exploration guided by uncertainty reduction and conditioned reinforcement in non-human primates. Sci Rep, 6(20202). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20202.Google Scholar

Foley, N. C., Kelley, S. P., Mhatre, H., Lopes, M., & Gottlieb, J. (2017). Parietal neurons encode expected gains in instrumental information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114(16), E3315–E3323.Google Scholar

Gottlieb, J., Kusunoki, M., & Goldberg, M. E. (1998). The representation of visual salience in monkey parietal cortex. Nature, 391, 481–484.Google Scholar

Gottlieb, J., & Oudeyer, P. Y. (2018). Toward a neuroscience of active sampling and curiosity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19(12), 758–770.Google Scholar

Horan, M., Daddaoua, N., & Gottlieb, J. (2019). Parietal neurons encode information sampling based on decision uncertainty. Nature Neuroscience, 22(8), 1327–1335. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0440-1.Google Scholar

Hunt, L. T., Rutledge, R. B., Malalasekera, W. M., Kennerley, S. W., & Dolan, R. J. (2016). Approach-induced biases in human information sampling. PLoS Biol., 14(11), e2000638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000638.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Iigaya, K., Story, G. W., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2016). The modulation of savouring by prediction error and its effects on choice. eLife, Apr. 21(5), e13747. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13747.CrossRef Google Scholar

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Holt.Google Scholar

Kobayashi, K., Ravaioli, S., Baranès, A., Woodford, M., & Gottlieb, J. (2019). Diverse motives for human curiosity. Nature Human Behavior., 3(6), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0589-3.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292–1298. https://doi.org/nn.2635%5Bpii%5D10.1038/nn.2635.Google Scholar

Krauzlis, R. J., Lovejoy, L. P., & Zenon, A. (2013). Superior colliculus and visual spatial attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 36, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170249.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Leong, Y., Radulescu, A., Daniel, R., DeWoskin, V., & Niv, Y. (2017). Dynamic interaction between reinforcement learning and attention in multidimensional environments. Neuron, 93(2), 451–463.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. The Economic Journal, 97(387), 666–684.Google Scholar

Maunsell, J. H. (2004). Neuronal representations of cognitive state: reward or attention? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(6), 261–265.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Morvan, C., & Maloney, L. (2012). Human visual search does not maximize the post-saccadic probability of identifying targets. PLoS Computational Biology, 8(2), e1002342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002342.Google Scholar

Najemnik, J., & Geisler, W. S. (2008). Eye movement statistics in humans are consistent with an optimal search strategy. Journal of Vision, 8 (3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.3.4/8/3/4/ [pii].CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nelson, J., McKenzie, C., Cottrell, G., & Sejnowski, T. (2010). Experience matters: Information acquisition optimizes probability gain. Psychological Science, 21(7), 960–969.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Padmala, S., & Pessoa, L. (2011). Reward reduces conflict by enhancing attentional control and biasing visual cortical processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3419–3432. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00011.Google Scholar

Rothe, A., Lake, B., & Gureckis, T. M. (2016). Asking and evaluating natural language questions. In Papafragou, A, Grodner, D, Mirman, D, & Trueswell, J. C (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2051–2056). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Sharot, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (2020). How people decide what they want to know. Nature Human Behavior, 4(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0793-1.Google Scholar

Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (2013). The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240.Google Scholar

Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116–031526.Google Scholar

Silvetti, M., Vassena, E., Abrahamse, E., & Verguts, T. (2018). Dorsal anterior cingulate-brainstem ensemble as a reinforcement meta-learner. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(8), e1006370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006370.Google Scholar

Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01455-8.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sugrue, L. P., Corrado, G. S., & Newsome, W. T. (2004). Matching behavior and the representation of value in the parietal cortex. Science, 304(5678), 1782–1787.Google Scholar

Taghizadeh, B., Foley, N. C., Karimimehr, S., Cohanpour, M., Semework, M., Sheth, S. A., … Gottlieb, J. (2020). Reward uncertainty asymmetrically affects information transmission within the monkey fronto-parietal network. Communications Biology, 3(1), 594. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01320-6.Google Scholar

Tatler, B. W., Hayhoe, M. N., Land, M. F., & Ballard, D. H. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 5–25.Google Scholar

Thompson, K. G., & Bichot, N. P. (2005). A visual salience map in the primate frontal eye field. Progress in Brain Research, 147, 251–262.Google Scholar PubMed

Wei, X. X., & Stocker, A. A. (2015). A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain “anti-Bayesian” percepts. Nature Neuroscience 18(10), 1509–1517.Google Scholar

Yang, S. C., Lengyel, M., & Wolpert, D. M. (2016). Active sensing in the categorization of visual patterns. eLife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12215.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.