Optimally interacting minds

Science

Volumn 329, Issue 5995, 2010, Pages 1081-1085

  Bahrami, Bahador ^a,b,c   Olsen, Karsten ^c   Latham, Peter E ^d   Roepstorff, Andreas ^c   Rees, Geraint ^a,b   Frith, Chris D ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; GROUP BEHAVIOR; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; SURVIVAL; VISION;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADULT; BAYES THEOREM; COMMUNICATION; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOMETRICS; UNCERTAINTY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77956126298     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1185718     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. L. Bovens, S. Hartmann, Bayesian Epistemology (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2003).
2. S. Nitzan, J. Paroush, Collective Decision Making: An Economic Outlook (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1985).
3. D. Alais, D. Burr, Curr. Biol. 14, 257 (2004).
4. M. O. Ernst, M. S. Banks, Nature 415, 429 (2002).
5. K. P. Körding, D. M. Wolpert, Nature 427, 244 (2004).
6. S. Deneve, P. E. Latham, A. Pouget, Nat. Neurosci. 4, 826 (2001).
7. D. M. Green, J. A. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, New York, 1966).
8. W. J. Ma, J. M. Beck, P. E. Latham, A. Pouget, Nat. Neurosci. 9, 1432 (2006).
9. For details of methods, models, and additional results, see the supporting material on Science Online.
10. G. W. Hill, Psychol. Bull. 91, 517 (1982).
11. R. Hastie, T. Kameda, Psychol. Rev. 112, 494 (2005).
12. P. R. Laughlin, A. L. Ellis, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22, 177 (1986).
13. In our model, this internal estimate of the probability of being correct is a function of the ratio of stimulus contrast in a given trial to its standard deviation. The standard deviation is found by fitting a cumulative Gaussian to the participant's psychometric function.
14. R. D. Sorkin, C. J. Hays, R. West, Psychol. Rev. 108, 183 (2001).
15. N. L. Kerr, R. S. Tindale, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 623 (2004).
16. B. Latané, K. Williams, S. Harkins, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 822 (1979).
17. M. E. Turner, A. R. Pratkanis, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 73, 105 (1998).
18. We thank D. Bang for generous help with data collection in experiments 2 and 4 and F. Scharnowski for his insightful comments in the early stages of the project. This work was supported by the European Union MindBridge project (B.B.), the Danish National Research Foundation and the Danish Research Council for Culture and Communication (A.R. and C.D.F.), the Gatsby Charitable Foundation (P.E.L.), and the Wellcome Trust (G.R.). Support from the MIND Lab UNIK initiative at Aarhus University was funded by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.