Humans differentially weight different stimuli in averaging tasks, which has been interpreted as reflecting encoding bias. We examine the alternative hypothesis that stimuli are encoded with noise and then optimally decoded. Under a model of efficient coding, the amount of noise should vary across stimuli and depend on statistics of the stimuli. We investigate these predictions through a task in which the participants are asked to compare the averages of two series of numbers, each sampled from a prior distribution that varies across blocks of trials. The participants encode numbers with a bias and a noise that both depend on the number. Infrequently occurring numbers are encoded with more noise. We show how an efficient-coding, Bayesian-decoding model accounts for these patterns and best captures the participants’ behaviour. Finally, our results suggest that Wei and Stocker’s “law of human perception”, which relates the bias and variability of sensory estimates, also applies to number cognition.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Barlow, H. B. in Sensory Communication (ed. Rosenblith, W. A.) 217–234 (MIT Press, 1961).
Jazayeri, M. & Movshon, J. A. A new perceptual illusion reveals mechanisms of sensory decoding. Nature 446, 912–915 (2007).
Ma, W. J., Beck, J. M. & Pouget, A. Spiking networks for Bayesian inference and choice. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 18, 217–222 (2008).
Savin, C. & Denève, S. Spatio-temporal representations of uncertainty in spiking neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 27, 2024–2032 (2014).
Ganguli, D. & Simoncelli, E. P. Neural and perceptual signatures of efficient sensory coding. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00058 (2016).
Drugowitsch, J., Wyart, V., Devauchelle, A.-D. & Koechlin, E. Computational precision of mental inference as critical source of human choice suboptimality. Neuron 92, 1398–1411 (2016).
Tversky, A. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol. Rev. 79, 281–299 (1972).
Payne, J. W., Bettman, R. & Johnson, E. J. The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).
Gigerenzer, G. & Goldstein, D. G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol. Rev. 103, 650–669 (1996).
Johnson, E. J. & Ratcliff, R. in Neuroeconomics (eds Glimcher, P. & Fehr, E.) 35–48 (Elsevier, 2014).
Summerfield, C. & Tsetsos, K. Do humans make good decisions? Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 27–34 (2015).
Spitzer, B., Waschke, L. & Summerfield, C. Selective overweighting of larger magnitudes during noisy numerical comparison. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0145 (2017).
Li, V., Castañon, S. H., Solomon, J. A., Vandormael, H. & Summerfield, C. Robust averaging protects decisions from noise in neural computations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005723 (2017).
De Gardelle, V. & Summerfield, C. Robust averaging during perceptual judgment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13341–13346 (2011).
Tsetsos, K. et al. Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3102–3107 (2016).
Knill, D. C. & Richards, W. Perception as Bayesian Inference (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
Ernst, M. O. & Banks, M. S. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415, 429–433 (2002).
Stocker, A. A. & Simoncelli, E. P. Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 578–585 (2006).
Girshick, A. R., Landy, M. S. & Simoncelli, E. P. Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nat. Neurosci.14, 926–932 (2011).
Petzschner, F. H., Glasauer, S. & Stephan, K. E. A Bayesian perspective on magnitude estimation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 285–293 (2015).
Wei, X.-X. & Stocker, A. A. A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain ‘anti-Bayesian’ percepts. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1509–1517 (2015).
Clarke, B. S. & Barron, A. R. Jeffreys’ prior is asymptotically least favorable under entropy risk. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 41, 37–60 (1994).
Brunel, N. & Nadal, J. P. Mutual information, Fisher information, and population coding. Neural Comput. 10, 1731–1757 (1998).
Ganguli, D. & Simoncelli, E. P. Implicit encoding of prior probabilities in optimal neural populations. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2010, 658–666 (2010).
Wei, X.-X. & Stocker, A. A. Mutual information, Fisher information, and efficient coding. Neural Comput. 326, 305–326 (2016).
Wei, X.-X. & Stocker, A. A. Lawful relation between perceptual bias and discriminability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10244–10249 (2017).
Stephan, K. E., Penny, W. D., Daunizeau, J., Moran, R. J. & Friston, K. J. Bayesian model selection for group studies. NeuroImage 46, 1004–1017 (2009).
Morais, M. & Pillow, J. W. Power-law efficient neural codes provide general link between perceptual bias and discriminability. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31, 5076–5085 (2018).
Prat-Carrabin, A. & Woodford, M. Bias and variance of the Bayesian-mean decoder. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 34, 23793–23805 (2022).
Wei, X.-X. & Stocker, A. A. Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 25, 1304–1312 (2012).
Castañón, S. H. et al. Human noise blindness drives suboptimal cognitive inference. Nat. Commun. 10, 1719 (2019).
McDonnell, M. D. & Stocks, N. G. Maximally informative stimuli and tuning curves for sigmoidal rate-coding neurons and populations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 058103 (2008).
Stocker, A. A. & Simoncelli, E. P. Sensory adaptation within a Bayesian framework for perception. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 18, 1291–1298 (2006).
Heng, J. A., Woodford, M. & Polania, R. Efficient sampling and noisy decisions. eLife 9, e54962 (2020).
Moyer, R. S. & Landauer, T. K. Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature 215, 1519–1520 (1967).
Parkman, J. M. Temporal aspects of digit and letter inequality judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. 91, 191–205 (1971).
Hinrichs, J. V., Yurko, D. S. & Hu, J. M. Two-digit number comparison: use of place information. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 7, 890–901 (1981).
Pinel, P., Dehaene, S., Rivière, D. & LeBihan, D. Modulation of parietal activation by semantic distance in a number comparison task. NeuroImage 14, 1013–1026 (2001).
Kutter, E. F., Bostroem, J., Elger, C. E., Mormann, F. & Nieder, A. Single neurons in the human brain encode numbers. Neuron 100, 753–761.e4 (2018).
Whalen, J., Gallistel, C. R. & Gelman, R. Nonverbal counting in humans: the psychophysics of number representation. Psychol. Sci. 10, 130–137 (1999).
Izard, V. & Dehaene, S. Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition 106, 1221–1247 (2008).
Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Spelke, E. & Pica, P. Log or linear? Distinct intuitions of the number scale in western and Amazonian indigene cultures. Science 320, 1217–1220 (2008).
Cheyette, S. J. & Piantadosi, S. T. A unified account of numerosity perception. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1265–1272 (2020).
Polanía, R., Woodford, M. & Ruff, C. C. Efficient coding of subjective value. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 134–142 (2019).
Dehaene, S. & Mehler, J. Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition 43, 1–29 (1992).
Piantadosi, S. T. & Cantlon, J. F. True numerical cognition in the wild. Psychol. Sci. 28, 462–469 (2017).
Peirce, J. et al. PsychoPy2: experiments in behavior made easy. Behav. Res. Methods 51, 195–203 (2019).
Harris, C. R. et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 357–362 (2020).
Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020).
Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2d graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
Prat-Carrabin, A. & Woodford, M. Efficient coding of numbers explains decision bias and noise: data and code. Columbia University Academic Commons https://doi.org/10.7916/tn94-qn62 (2022).
We thank B. Ho for his outstanding help as a research assistant, the National Science Foundation for research support (grant no. SES DRMS 1949418, M.W.) and the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University for research support (Spring 2021 Fellowship, A.P.-C.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Prat-Carrabin, A., Woodford, M. Efficient coding of numbers explains decision bias and noise. Nat Hum Behav 6, 1142–1152 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01352-4