Affective bias as a rational response to the statistics of rewards and punishments

  1. Erdem Pulcu
  2. Michael Browning  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

Affective bias, the tendency to differentially prioritise the processing of negative relative to positive events, is commonly observed in clinical and non-clinical populations. However, why such biases develop is not known. Using a computational framework, we investigated whether affective biases may reflect individuals' estimates of the information content of negative relative to positive events. During a reinforcement learning task, the information content of positive and negative outcomes was manipulated independently by varying the volatility of their occurrence. Human participants altered the learning rates used for the outcomes selectively, preferentially learning from the most informative. This behaviour was associated with activity of the central norepinephrine system, estimated using pupilometry, for loss outcomes. Humans maintain independent estimates of the information content of distinct positive and negative outcomes which may bias their processing of affective events. Normalising affective biases using computationally inspired interventions may represent a novel approach to treatment development.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Erdem Pulcu

    Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Michael Browning

    Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    michael.browning@psych.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Michael Browning, has received travel expenses from Lundbeck for attending conferences..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9108-3144

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/N008103/1)

  • Michael Browning

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants provided written informed consent. The study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Sciences Interdepartmental Research Ethics Committee of Oxford University (ref number MSD-IDREC-C1-2014-216).

Copyright

© 2017, Pulcu & Browning

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,842
    views
  • 638
    downloads
  • 53
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Erdem Pulcu
  2. Michael Browning
(2017)
Affective bias as a rational response to the statistics of rewards and punishments
eLife 6:e27879.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27879

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27879

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Nicolas Langer, Maurice Weber ... Ce Zhang
    Tools and Resources

    Memory deficits are a hallmark of many different neurological and psychiatric conditions. The Rey–Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) is the state-of-the-art assessment tool for neuropsychologists across the globe to assess the degree of non-verbal visual memory deterioration. To obtain a score, a trained clinician inspects a patient’s ROCF drawing and quantifies deviations from the original figure. This manual procedure is time-consuming, slow and scores vary depending on the clinician’s experience, motivation, and tiredness. Here, we leverage novel deep learning architectures to automatize the rating of memory deficits. For this, we collected more than 20k hand-drawn ROCF drawings from patients with various neurological and psychiatric disorders as well as healthy participants. Unbiased ground truth ROCF scores were obtained from crowdsourced human intelligence. This dataset was used to train and evaluate a multihead convolutional neural network. The model performs highly unbiased as it yielded predictions very close to the ground truth and the error was similarly distributed around zero. The neural network outperforms both online raters and clinicians. The scoring system can reliably identify and accurately score individual figure elements in previously unseen ROCF drawings, which facilitates explainability of the AI-scoring system. To ensure generalizability and clinical utility, the model performance was successfully replicated in a large independent prospective validation study that was pre-registered prior to data collection. Our AI-powered scoring system provides healthcare institutions worldwide with a digital tool to assess objectively, reliably, and time-efficiently the performance in the ROCF test from hand-drawn images.