Abstract:Numerous studies have found that the Bayesian framework, which formulates the optimal integration of the knowledge of the world (i.e. prior) and current sensory evidence (i.e. likelihood), captures human behaviours sufficiently well. However, there are debates regarding whether humans use precise but cognitively demanding Bayesian computations for behaviours. Across two studies, we trained participants to estimate hidden locations of a target drawn from priors with different levels of uncertainty. In each trial, scattered dots provided noisy likelihood information about the target location. Participants showed that they learned the priors and combined prior and likelihood information to infer target locations in a Bayes fashion. We then introduced a transfer condition presenting a trained prior and a likelihood that has never been put together during training. How well participants integrate this novel likelihood with their learned prior is an indicator of whether participants perform Bayesian computations. In one study, participants experienced the newly introduced likelihood, which was paired with a different prior, during training. Participants changed likelihood weighting following expected directions although the degrees of change were significantly lower than Bayes-optimal predictions. In another group, the novel likelihoods were never used during training. We found people integrated a new likelihood within (interpolation) better than the one outside (extrapolation) the range of their previous learning experience and they were quantitatively Bayes-suboptimal in both. We replicated the findings of both studies in a validation dataset. Our results showed that Bayesian behaviours may not always be achieved by a full Bayesian computation. Future studies can apply our approach to different tasks to enhance the understanding of decision-making mechanisms. Bayesian decision theory has emerged as a unified approach for capturing a wide range of behaviours under uncertainty. However, behavioural evidence supporting that humans use explicit Bayesian computation is scarce. While it has been argued that knowledge generalization should be treated as hard evidence of the use of Bayesian strategies, results from previous work were inconclusive. Here, we develop a marker that effectively quantifies how well humans transfer learned priors to a new scenario. Our marker can be applied to various tasks and thus can provide a path forwarding the understanding of psychological and biological underpinnings of inferential behaviours.

Experimental Tests of Subjective Bayesian Methods

The Variable Precision Method for Elicitation of Probability Weighting Functions.

Fully Bayesian Benchmarking of Small Area Estimation Models

Bayesian Models and Methods in Public Policy and Government Settings

Fully Bayesian estimation under informative sampling

A puzzle of proportions: Two popular Bayesian tests can yield dramatically different conclusions

Bayesian assessment of the characteristic concrete compressive strength using combined vague–informative priors

A Bayesian approach for the analysis of error rate studies in forensic science

Are we really Bayesian? Probabilistic inference shows sub-optimal knowledge transfer

Bayesian Versus Frequentist Estimation for Structural Equation Models in Small Sample Contexts: A Systematic Review

Empirical Bayes for Large-scale Randomized Experiments: a Spectral Approach

Studies in subjective probability l: Prediction of random events

Bayesian outcome selection modelling

Formalizing Subjective Notions about the Effect of Nonrespondents in Sample Surveys

Bayesian analysis for pretest-posttest binary outcomes with adaptive significance levels

Bayesian Nonparametric Weighted Sampling Inference

Empirical Bayes in Bayesian learning: understanding a common practice

Higher Accuracy for Bayesian and Frequentist Inference: Large Sample Theory for Small Sample Likelihood

Bayesian or Non-Bayesian: A Comparison Study of Item Parameter Estimation in the Three-Parameter Logistic Model

On Using Bayesian Methods to Address Small Sample Problems