Dataset Information

Confirmation Bias through Selective Use of Evidence in Human Cortex.

ABSTRACT: Decision-makers often process new evidence selectively, depending on their current beliefs about the world. We asked whether such confirmation biases result from biases in the encoding of sensory evidence in the brain, or alternatively in the utilization of encoded evidence for behavior. Human participants estimated the source of a sequence of visual-spatial evidence samples while we measured cortical population activity with magnetoencephalography (MEG). Halfway through the sequence, participants were prompted to judge the more likely source category. Their processing of subsequent evidence depended on its consistency with the previously chosen category, but the encoding of evidence in cortical activity did not. Instead, the encoded evidence in parietal and primary visual cortex contributed less to the estimation report when that evidence was inconsistent with the previous choice. We conclude that confirmation bias originates from the way in which decision-makers utilize information encoded in the brain. This provides room for deliberative control.

SUBMITTER: Park H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11230165 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Confirmation Bias through Selective Readout of Information Encoded in Human Parietal Cortex.

Park Hame H Arazi Ayelet A Talluri Bharath Chandra BC Celotto Marco M Panzeri Stefano S Stocker Alan A AA Donner Tobias H TH

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology 20250519

Decision-makers often process new evidence selectively, depending on their current beliefs about the world. We asked whether such confirmation biases result from biases in the encoding of sensory evidence in the brain, or alternatively in the utilization of encoded evidence for behavior. Human participants estimated the source of a sequence of visual-spatial evidence samples while we measured cortical population activity with magnetoencephalography. Halfway through the sequence, participants wer ...[more]

PMID: 38979146

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSelective reporting bias occurs when chance or selective outcome reporting rather than the intervention contributes to group differences. The prevailing concern about selective reporting bias is the possibility of results being modified towards specific conclusions. In this study, we evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in hematology journals, a group in which selective outcome reporting has not yet been explored.MethodsOur primary goal was to examine discrepancies between the reported primary and secondary outcomes in registered and published RCTs concerning hematological malignancies reported in hematology journals with a high impact factor. The secondary goals were to address whether outcome reporting discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes, whether a pattern existed between the funding source and likelihood of outcome reporting bias, and whether temporal trends were present in outcome reporting bias. For trials with major outcome discrepancies, we contacted trialists to determine reasons for these discrepancies. Trials published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 in Blood; British Journal of Haematology; American Journal of Hematology; Leukemia; and Haematologica were included.ResultsOf 499 RCTs screened, 109 RCTs were included. Our analysis revealed 118 major discrepancies and 629 total discrepancies. Among the 118 discrepancies, 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were demoted, 47 (39.8%) primary outcomes were omitted, and 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were added. Three (2.5%) secondary outcomes were upgraded to a primary outcome. The timing of assessment for a primary outcome changed eight (6.8%) times. Thirty-one major discrepancies were published with a P-value and twenty-five (80.6%) favored statistical significance. A majority of authors whom we contacted cited a pre-planned subgroup analysis as a reason for outcome changes.ConclusionOur results suggest that outcome changes occur frequently in hematology trials. Because RCTs ultimately underpin clinical judgment and guide policy implementation, selective reporting could pose a threat to medical decision making.

Dataset Information

Confirmation Bias through Selective Use of Evidence in Human Cortex.

Publications

Confirmation Bias through Selective Readout of Information Encoded in Human Parietal Cortex.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets