Temporal Expectation Hastens Decision Onset But Does Not Affect Evidence Quality

Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 41, pp. 130–143

Abstract

The ability to predict the timing of forthcoming events, known as temporal expectation, has a strong impact on human information processing. Although there is growing consensus that temporal expectations enhance the speed and accuracy of perceptual decisions, it remains unclear whether they affect the decision process itself, or non-decisional (sensory/motor) processes. Here, healthy human participants ( N = 21; 18 female) used predictive auditory cues to anticipate the timing of low-contrast visual stimuli they were required to detect. Modeling of the behavioral data using a prominent sequential sampling model indicated that temporal expectations speeded up non-decisional processes but had no effect on decision formation. Electrophysiological recordings confirmed and extended this result: temporal expectations hastened the onset of a neural signature of decision formation but had no effect on its build-up rate. Anticipatory α band power was modulated by temporal expectation and co-varied with intrinsic trial-by-trial variability in behavioral and neural signatures of the onset latency of the decision process. These findings highlight how temporal predictions optimize our interaction with unfolding sensory events. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Temporal expectation enhances performance, but the locus of this effect remains debated. Here, we contrasted the two dominant accounts: enhancement through (1) expedited decision onset, or (2) an increase in the quality of sensory evidence. We manipulated expectations about the onset of a dim visual target using a temporal cueing paradigm, and probed the locus of the expectation effect with two complementary approaches: drift diffusion modeling (DDM) of behavior, and estimation of the onset and progression of the decision process from a supramodal accumulation-to-bound signal in simultaneously measured EEG signals. Behavioral modeling and neural data provided strong, converging evidence for an account in which temporal expectations enhance perception by speeding up decision onset, without affecting evidence quality.

Authors 5

1. Ruud L. van den Brink Aachen Department of Psychology, Leiden University 2Department of Psychology

   Leiden University · University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

   Section Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20251 Germany r.van-den-brink@uke.de

   1Section Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20251 Germany

   2Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

2. Peter R. Murphy Aachen Department of Psychology, Leiden University 2Department of Psychology

   Leiden University · University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

   Section Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20251 Germany

   1Section Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20251 Germany

   2Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

3. Kobe Desender

   Ghent University · University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · KU Leuven

   Affiliation as printed

   Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

   Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium

   Section Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20251 Germany

   1Section Computational Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20251 Germany

   3Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium

   4Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

4. Nicole de Ru Aachen Department of Psychology, Leiden University 2Department of Psychology

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

   2Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

5. Sander Nieuwenhuis Aachen Department of Psychology, Leiden University Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition 2Department of Psychology 5Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

   Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

   2Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands

   5Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands