Unexpected arousal modulates the influence of sensory noise on confidence

Micah Allen, Darya Frank, D Samuel Schwarzkopf, Francesca Fardo, Joel S Winston, Tobias U Hauser, Geraint Rees, Micah Allen, Darya Frank, D Samuel Schwarzkopf, Francesca Fardo, Joel S Winston, Tobias U Hauser, Geraint Rees

Abstract

Human perception is invariably accompanied by a graded feeling of confidence that guides metacognitive awareness and decision-making. It is often assumed that this arises solely from the feed-forward encoding of the strength or precision of sensory inputs. In contrast, interoceptive inference models suggest that confidence reflects a weighted integration of sensory precision and expectations about internal states, such as arousal. Here we test this hypothesis using a novel psychophysical paradigm, in which unseen disgust-cues induced unexpected, unconscious arousal just before participants discriminated motion signals of variable precision. Across measures of perceptual bias, uncertainty, and physiological arousal we found that arousing disgust cues modulated the encoding of sensory noise. Furthermore, the degree to which trial-by-trial pupil fluctuations encoded this nonlinear interaction correlated with trial level confidence. Our results suggest that unexpected arousal regulates perceptual precision, such that subjective confidence reflects the integration of both external sensory and internal, embodied states.

Keywords: arousal; cardiac responses; confidence; human; interoceptive inference; metacognition; neuroscience; pupillometry.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1.. Arousal-Cued global motion task.
Figure 1.. Arousal-Cued global motion task.
Trial schematic illustrating our arousal-cued global motion task, in which an unexpected, masked disgusted face increased arousal just prior to a motion judgement and confidence rating. On each trial motion stimulus of variable precision (15 or 25 degrees standard deviation, σ) were preceded by either a masked disgust or neutral face, followed by the perceived neutral mask. Participants then made a forced-choice motion discrimination and subjective confidence rating. Histogram and average luminance-matching was applied between conditions and frames to eliminate pupillary artefacts, see Materials and methods for more details. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18103.003
Figure 2.. Overview of behavioral results.
Figure 2.. Overview of behavioral results.
(A) Manipulation of sensory precision; stimulus probability density functions show our low (15 σ) and high (25 σ) variance conditions; stimulus mean and variance were orthogonally manipulated using a global-motion stimulus. (B) The performance was held constant using adaptive thresholding separately for disgust vs. neutral trials; conditions labels are neutral low variance (NL), neutral high variance (NH), disgust low variance (DL), disgust high variance (DH). (C) Degraded sensory precision reduces perceptual sensitivity; cues had no impact on either motion detection (i) or threshold (ii). Instead, disgust cues selectively increased rightward bias for low-variance stimuli (iii), suggesting arousal altered stimulus expectations. As predicted by interoceptive inference, arousing cues significantly decrease the impact of noise on uncertainty (M-bias) (iv). Curly brackets indicate F-test of 2-way interaction, square brackets indicate post-hoc t-tests (*** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05). All error bars +/- SEM. (D) Although performance was held constant (dark triangles, % correct), participants show considerable variability in metacognitive sensitivity (light diamonds, M-Ratio), reproducing previous results using the signal-theoretic confidence model. (E) Participants had no awareness of cue valence in a post-task forced choice test using identical trial parameters; 95% confidence intervals for d-prime on all four face pairs overlap zero (see Materials and methods, Valence Detection Task). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18103.004
Figure 3.. Pupillometry results.
Figure 3.. Pupillometry results.
(A) Results of general linear modelling (GLM) of pupil responses; the pupil grand mean response function shows a canonical orientation response, peaking during confidence rating before returning to baseline in the 2–3 s jittered inter-trial interval. (B) As predicted, pupillary fluctuations encode the interaction of exteroceptive noise and unexpected internal arousal, time locked to the response interval and onset of confidence rating. (C) For illustration, mean response for each condition, extracted from significant time-window controlling for all explanatory and nuisance variables. GLMs were fit across all trials to each time point of the pupil series. Explanatory variables encoded main effects of stimulus noise, variance, confidence, and interactions thereof, revealing the amplitude and timing of each effect. The effects are independent from task-difficulty; trial-wise mean signal and RT were controlled in all analyses. Significance assessed using a cluster-based permutation t-test, cluster alpha = 0.05; cluster shown by shaded grey patch. See Materials and methods for more details. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18103.007
Figure 3—figure supplement 1.. Additional pupil effects…
Figure 3—figure supplement 1.. Additional pupil effects of interest.
(A) Confidence is biphasically encoded in pupil responses, with a stimulus-locked dilatory effect and a rating-locked constriction effect. Cues (B, disgust > neutral) increased dilation from response to rating. (C) Three-way interaction of cue valence, variance, and confidence showing that magnitude of cue-related pupil reversal correlates with trialwise confidence. Results of general linear modelling of the pupil, with explanatory variables encoding the main effects of stimulus noise, variance, confidence, and interactions thereof, revealing the amplitude and timing of each effect. The effects are independent from task-difficulty; trialwise mean signal and RT were controlled in all analyses. Significance assessed using a cluster-based permutation t-test, cluster alpha = 0.05; cluster shown by shaded grey patch. See Materials and methods for more details. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18103.008
Figure 4.. Cardiac results.
Figure 4.. Cardiac results.
(A) Grand mean cardiac response function showing canonical heart rate deceleration orientation response, and trial timings. (B) Subjective confidence ratings encoded by greater heart rate acceleration, beginning with stimulus onset and peaking during ratings. (C) Unseen disgust cues increase heart rate during confidence rating. (D) This effect interacts with confidence, effectively reversing the mapping of cardiac acceleration and subjective uncertainty. (E) To illustrate this effect, trials were median split into high and low confidence for each disgust condition (e.g., neutral low confidence, NLC), and mean response was extracted from within the significant cue by confidence window. Results of general linear modelling of instantaneous heart rate, with explanatory variables encoding the main effects of stimulus noise, variance, confidence, and interactions thereof, revealing the amplitude and timing of each effect. Effects are independent from task-difficulty; trial-wise mean signal and RT were controlled in all analyses. Significance assessed using a cluster-based permutation t-test, cluster alpha = 0.05; cluster shown by shaded grey patch. See Materials and methods for more details. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18103.009

References

    1. Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2005;28:403–450. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709.
    1. Bachmann T, Francis G. Visual Masking: Studying Perception, Attention, and Consciousness. Academic Press; 2013.
    1. Barrett LF, Simmons WK. Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2015;16:419–429. doi: 10.1038/nrn3950.
    1. Bastos AM, Usrey WM, Adams RA, Mangun GR, Fries P, Friston KJ. Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron. 2012;76:695–711. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038.
    1. Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Walton ME, Rushworth MF. Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nature Neuroscience. 2007;10:1214–1221. doi: 10.1038/nn1954.
    1. Chanes L, Barrett LF. Redefining the role of limbic areas in cortical processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2016;20:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.005.
    1. Chapman HA, Anderson AK. Understanding disgust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2012;1251:62–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06369.x.
    1. Cheadle S, Wyart V, Tsetsos K, Myers N, de Gardelle V, Herce Castañón S, Summerfield C. Adaptive gain control during human perceptual choice. Neuron. 2014;81:1429–1441. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.020.
    1. Clark A. Open MIND. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group; 2015. Embodied Prediction.
    1. Cornelissen FW, Peters EM, Palmer J. The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2002;34:613–617. doi: 10.3758/BF03195489.
    1. Cornsweet TN. The staircrase-method in psychophysics. The American Journal of Psychology. 1962;75:485–491. doi: 10.2307/1419876.
    1. Critchley HD, Harrison NA. Visceral influences on brain and behavior. Neuron. 2013;77:624–638. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.02.008.
    1. Critchley HD, Mathias CJ, Dolan RJ. Neural activity in the human brain relating to uncertainty and arousal during anticipation. Neuron. 2001;29:537–545. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00225-2.
    1. Dawson ME, Schell AM, Catania JJ. Autonomic correlates of depression and clinical improvement following electroconvulsive shock therapy. Psychophysiology. 1977;14:569–578. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01201.x.
    1. de Berker AO, Rutledge RB, Mathys C, Marshall L, Cross GF, Dolan RJ, Bestmann S. Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans. Nature Communications. 2016;7:10996. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10996.
    1. de Gardelle V, Summerfield C. Robust averaging during perceptual judgment. PNAS. 2011;108:13341–13346. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1104517108.
    1. Dimberg U, Thunberg M, Elmehed K. Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychological Science. 2000;11:86–89. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00221.
    1. Eldar E, Cohen JD, Niv Y. The effects of neural gain on attention and learning. Nature Neuroscience. 2013;16:1146–1153. doi: 10.1038/nn.3428.
    1. Feldman H, Friston KJ. Attention, uncertainty, and free-energy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2010;4:215. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00215.
    1. Fiehler K, Ullsperger M, Grigutsch M, von Cramon DY. Cardiac responses to error processing and response conflict. In: Ullsperger M, Falkenstein M, editors. Errors, Conflicts, and the Brain : Current Opinions on Performance Monitoring. Leipzig: MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences; 2004. pp. 135–140.
    1. Fleming SM, Huijgen J, Dolan RJ. Prefrontal contributions to metacognition in perceptual decision making. Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;32:6117–6125. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6489-11.2012.
    1. Fleming SM, Lau HC. How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014;8:443. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443.
    1. Fleming SM, Maniscalco B, Ko Y, Amendi N, Ro T, Lau H. Action-specific disruption of perceptual confidence. Psychological Science. 2015;26:89–98. doi: 10.1177/0956797614557697.
    1. Fleming SM, Weil RS, Nagy Z, Dolan RJ, Rees G. Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science. 2010;329:1541–1543. doi: 10.1126/science.1191883.
    1. Friston K, Kiebel S. Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;364:1211–1221. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0300.
    1. Friston KJ, Shiner T, FitzGerald T, Galea JM, Adams R, Brown H, Dolan RJ, Moran R, Stephan KE, Bestmann S. Dopamine, affordance and active inference. PLoS Computational Biology. 2012;8:e1002327. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002327.
    1. Galvin SJ, Podd JV, Drga V, Whitmore J. Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2003;10:843–876. doi: 10.3758/BF03196546.
    1. Garfinkel SN, Barrett AB, Minati L, Dolan RJ, Seth AK, Critchley HD. What the heart forgets: Cardiac timing influences memory for words and is modulated by metacognition and interoceptive sensitivity. Psychophysiology. 2013;50:505–512. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12039.
    1. Goeleven E, De Raedt R, Leyman L, Verschuere B. The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces: A validation study. Cognition & Emotion. 2008;22:1094–1118. doi: 10.1080/02699930701626582.
    1. Graham FK, Clifton RK. Heart-rate change as a component of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin. 1966;65:305–320. doi: 10.1037/h0023258.
    1. Gu X, Hof PR, Friston KJ, Fan J. Anterior insular cortex and emotional awareness. Journal of Comparative Neurology. 2013;521:3371–3388. doi: 10.1002/cne.23368.
    1. Hauser TU, Fiore VG, Moutoussis M, Dolan RJ. Computational psychiatry of ADHD: Neural gain impairments across marrian levels of analysis. Trends in Neurosciences. 2016;39:63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2015.12.009.
    1. Hauser TU, Hunt LT, Iannaccone R, Walitza S, Brandeis D, Brem S, Dolan RJ. Temporally dissociable contributions of human medial prefrontal subregions to reward-guided learning. Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;35:11209–11220. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0560-15.2015.
    1. Hayasaka S, Phan KL, Liberzon I, Worsley KJ, Nichols TE. Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods. NeuroImage. 2004;22:676–687. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.01.041.
    1. Hoehn-Saric R, McLeod DR. Anxiety and arousal: physiological changes and their perception. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2000;61:217–224. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00339-6.
    1. Hunt LT, Woolrich MW, Rushworth MF, Behrens TE. Trial-type dependent frames of reference for value comparison. PLoS Computational Biology. 2013;9:e1003225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003225.
    1. Iglesias S, Mathys C, Brodersen KH, Kasper L, Piccirelli M, den Ouden HE, Stephan KE. Hierarchical prediction errors in midbrain and basal forebrain during sensory learning. Neuron. 2013;80:519–530. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.009.
    1. Kahneman D, Beatty J. Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science. 1966;154:1583–1585. doi: 10.1126/science.154.3756.1583.
    1. Kanai R, Komura Y, Shipp S, Friston K. Cerebral hierarchies: predictive processing, precision and the pulvinar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2015;370:20140169. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0169.
    1. Kiani R, Corthell L, Shadlen MN. Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time. Neuron. 2014;84:1329–1342. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.015.
    1. Kiani R, Shadlen MN. Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science. 2009;324:759–764. doi: 10.1126/science.1169405.
    1. Klein TA, Ullsperger M, Danielmeier C. Error awareness and the insula: links to neurological and psychiatric diseases. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2013;7:14. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00014.
    1. Lau H, Rosenthal D. Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2011;15:365–373. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.009.
    1. Lebreton M, Abitbol R, Daunizeau J, Pessiglione M. Automatic integration of confidence in the brain valuation signal. Nature Neuroscience. 2015;18:1159–1167. doi: 10.1038/nn.4064.
    1. Lempert KM, Chen YL, Fleming SM. Relating pupil dilation and metacognitive confidence during auditory decision-making. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0126588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126588.
    1. Lundqvist D, Flykt A, Öhman A. The Karolinska directed emotional faces (KDEF) [CD-ROM] Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet; Stockholm, Sweden: 1998. pp. 91–630.
    1. Maniscalco B, Lau H. A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings. Consciousness and Cognition. 2012;21:422–430. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.021.
    1. Moran RJ, Campo P, Symmonds M, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Friston KJ. Free energy, precision and learning: the role of cholinergic neuromodulation. Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33:8227–8236. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4255-12.2013.
    1. Murphy PR, O'Connell RG, O'Sullivan M, Robertson IH, Balsters JH. Pupil diameter covaries with bold activity in human locus coeruleus. Human Brain Mapping. 2014a;35:4140–4154. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22466.
    1. Murphy PR, Vandekerckhove J, Nieuwenhuis S. Pupil-Linked Arousal Determines Variability in Perceptual Decision Making. PLoS Computational Biology. 2014b;10:e1003854. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003854.
    1. Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen J-M. Fieldtrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2010;2011:e156869. doi: 10.1155/2011/156869.
    1. Overgaard M. Behavioral Methods in Consciousness Research. Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Pan J, Tompkins WJ. A real-time QRS detection algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 1985;BME-32:230–236. doi: 10.1109/TBME.1985.325532.
    1. Phillips ML, Young AW, Senior C, Brammer M, Andrew C, Calder AJ, Bullmore ET, Perrett DI, Rowland D, Williams SC, Gray JA, David AS. A specific neural substrate for perceiving facial expressions of disgust. Nature. 1997;389:495–498. doi: 10.1038/39051.
    1. Pleskac TJ, Busemeyer JR. Two-stage dynamic signal detection: a theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychological Review. 2010;117:864–901. doi: 10.1037/a0019737.
    1. Rahnev D, Koizumi A, McCurdy LY, D'Esposito M, Lau H. Confidence leak in perceptual decision making. Psychological Science. 2015;26:1664–1680. doi: 10.1177/0956797615595037.
    1. Salomon R, Ronchi R, Dönz J, Bello-Ruiz J, Herbelin B, Martet R, Faivre N, Schaller K, Blanke O. The Insula Mediates Access to Awareness of Visual Stimuli Presented Synchronously to the Heartbeat. Journal of Neuroscience. 2016;36:5115–5127. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4262-15.2016.
    1. Schwartenbeck P, FitzGerald TH, Mathys C, Dolan R, Friston K. The dopaminergic midbrain encodes the expected certainty about desired outcomes. Cerebral Cortex. 2015;25:3434–3445. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu159.
    1. Servan-Schreiber D, Printz H, Cohen JD. A network model of catecholamine effects: gain, signal-to-noise ratio, and behavior. Science. 1990;249:892–895. doi: 10.1126/science.2392679.
    1. Seth AK. Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2013;17:565–573. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007.
    1. Singer T, Critchley HD, Preuschoff K. A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2009;13:334–340. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.05.001.
    1. Sokolov EN. Higher nervous functions; the orienting reflex. Annual Review of Physiology. 1963;25:545–580. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ph.25.030163.002553.
    1. Spence ML, Dux PE, Arnold DH. Computations underlying confidence in visual perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2016;42:671–682. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000179.
    1. Summerfield C, Behrens TE, Koechlin E. Perceptual classification in a rapidly changing environment. Neuron. 2011;71:725–736. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.06.022.
    1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin. 1971;76:105–110. doi: 10.1037/h0031322.
    1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
    1. Vinck M, Batista-Brito R, Knoblich U, Cardin JA. Arousal and locomotion make distinct contributions to cortical activity patterns and visual encoding. Neuron. 2015;86:740–754. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.028.
    1. Vrana SR. The psychophysiology of disgust: differentiating negative emotional contexts with facial EMG. Psychophysiology. 1993;30:279–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03354.x.
    1. Wierda SM, van Rijn H, Taatgen NA, Martens S. Pupil dilation deconvolution reveals the dynamics of attention at high temporal resolution. PNAS. 2012;109:8456–8460. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201858109.
    1. Willenbockel V, Sadr J, Fiset D, Horne G, Gosselin F, Tanaka J. The SHINE toolbox for controlling low-level image properties. Journal of Vision. 2010;10:653. doi: 10.1167/10.7.653.
    1. Zylberberg A, Roelfsema PR, Sigman M. Variance misperception explains illusions of confidence in simple perceptual decisions. Consciousness and Cognition. 2014;27:246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.05.012.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe