Sur­pris­ing sounds influ­ence risky deci­sion making


By load­ing the video, you agree to YouTube’s pri­va­cy pol­i­cy.
Learn more

Load video

Glo­ria W Feng — Yale University


Sur­pris­ing sen­so­ry events are com­mon in dai­ly life but often behav­ioral­ly irrel­e­vant. Here, we test­ed whether inci­den­tal sur­pris­es influ­ence deci­sion mak­ing, across six online exper­i­ments designed on the online platform.

Par­tic­i­pants (n=1200) made choic­es between risky and safe options in which each option pre­sen­ta­tion was pre­ced­ed by task-irrel­e­vant six-tone audi­to­ry sequences. In two exper­i­ments (each n=200), “com­mon” sequences heard before 75% of tri­als con­sist­ed of iden­ti­cal tones and “rare” sequences heard before 25% of tri­als end­ed with a nov­el deviant tone. Rare sequences simul­ta­ne­ous­ly increased risk tak­ing and increased switch­ing away from the option cho­sen on the pre­vi­ous trial.

Our com­pu­ta­tion­al mod­el cap­tured both changes with val­ue-inde­pen­dent risk-tak­ing and choice per­se­ver­a­tion para­me­ters, respec­tive­ly. When sequence prob­a­bil­i­ties were reversed such that rare sequences con­sist­ed of the six iden­ti­cal tones, par­tic­i­pants still increased option switch­ing after hear­ing these sequences but did not increase risk tak­ing. In two con­trol exper­i­ments, both effects were elim­i­nat­ed when sequences were pre­sent­ed in a pre­dictable man­ner. The choice switch­ing effect may arise not from tone nov­el­ty but from rec­og­niz­ing sur­pris­ing sequences.

Thus, we find evi­dence for two dis­so­cia­ble influ­ences of sen­so­ry sur­prise on deci­sion mak­ing. Aber­rant sen­so­ry pro­cess­ing is impli­cat­ed in psy­chi­atric dis­or­ders includ­ing schiz­o­phre­nia and psy­chosis. Our find­ings offer a new way to eval­u­ate patients and treat­ments by exam­in­ing the rela­tion­ships between sen­so­ry pre­dic­tion errors and behavior.

Alto­geth­er, we find that sur­pris­ing sounds sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly alter human behav­ior, iden­ti­fy­ing a pre­vi­ous­ly unrec­og­nized source of behav­ioral vari­abil­i­ty in every­day deci­sion making.

Full Tran­script:

Glo­ria Feng 0:00
here. Thank you every­one. My name is Glo­ria and I will be talk­ing about my project titled sur­pris­ing sounds influ­ence risky deci­sion mak­ing. So this project was con­duct­ed ful­ly online and con­sists of four main exper­i­ments which I ran over the course of about a year. And I’m excit­ed to share with you its results and also what it has taught me about online research.

So to start, imag­ine that you’re in a busy city. In this urban jun­gle, there are sur­pris­ing sen­so­ry events every­where, you can imag­ine the sound of a car honk­ing for you to get out of the way, or the sound of an approach­ing sub­way car approach­ing you. So in response to the sur­pris­ing sounds, you might quick­ly change your behav­iour. This could mean chang­ing course on the pedes­tri­an cross­way or quick­ly jerk­ing back­wards away from the plat­form edge. In both of these instances, an imme­di­ate behav­iour­al response to a sur­pris­ing sound can be tru­ly adap­tive, because it can pro­tect you from an imme­di­ate dan­ger, or alert you about a poten­tial reward. How­ev­er, but after being in these envi­ron­ments for a while, you might notice that most of the time, the abun­dant nois­es that you’re sur­round­ed by, are actu­al­ly behav­ioral­ly irrelevant.

Think about a time when you were stuffed inside of a crowd­ed sub­way car on your morn­ing com­mute. And while you’re try­ing to focus on doing a cross­word puz­zle, or as you’re writ­ing up a mes­sage to a friend, you hear some­one’s ring­tone going off on the side, or the sound of a con­ver­sa­tion hap­pen­ing in the back­ground. These are also con­sid­ered sur­pris­ing sen­tence sen­so­ry events, but it’s a lit­tle bit less intu­itive, what kind of imme­di­ate effects that might have on your behav­iour, if at all? And if so whether those effects on your behav­iour are sys­tem­at­ic or not. So this is the kind of thing that we were won­der­ing about whether you know, task irrel­e­vant or behav­ioral­ly irrel­e­vant, sur­pris­ing sounds real­ly affect our behav­iour. And we decid­ed to look at this gen­er­al ques­tion in a small­er domain of risky deci­sion making.

And so now the ques­tion kind of becomes, do sur­pris­ing sounds sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly effect our risky deci­sion mak­ing, even when those sur­pris­ing sounds are actu­al­ly task irrel­e­vant. So this is the way that we took a stab at this ques­tion. And we asked par­tic­i­pants to make choic­es between a risky gam­ble option so like a unbi­ased coin flip, essen­tial­ly, or a safe option on every tri­al, and with a key­board press, they can decide to choose the risky option. And after a short delay, they get to see whether they’ve won or lost that, or they can choose the safe choice by click­ing anoth­er key­board key.

On every tri­al, par­tic­i­pants can see one of three dif­fer­ent types of tri­als. So they can either see a gain tri­al, which is at the top, which fea­tures either a poten­tial gain or a small­er poten­tial gain, or a loss tri­al, which involves only poten­tial loss­es, or final­ly, a mixed tri­al, which con­tains a mix­ture of poten­tial gains or poten­tial loss­es. So this is a pret­ty stan­dard par­a­digm used to mea­sure and kind of cap­ture peo­ple’s risk tak­ing pref­er­ences. The key though, is that we intro­duced sur­pris­ing audi­to­ry sequences, or we intro­duced audi­to­ry sequences to this paradigm.

So in the inter tri­al inter­val, so in the three sec­onds before par­tic­i­pants are shown their next set of options to make the choice, par­tic­i­pants have to pas­sive­ly lis­ten to a six tone audi­to­ry sequence. And what’s impor­tant to note is that these audi­to­ry sequences are sup­posed to be task irrel­e­vant in the sense that what­ev­er sounds that they hear, are com­plete­ly not pre­dic­tive of what­ev­er they’re going to be shown next. And it’s not going to be pre­dic­tive of the rewards that they’re going to get. So on a major­i­ty of tri­als on 75% of tri­als, par­tic­i­pants will hear what I’ll con­sid­er a com­mon sequence. So that’s on the bot­tom row here. And it’s com­mon sequence, as shown in the graph­ic con­sists of six iden­ti­cal tones. So I’m going to try to play that for every­one. And I hope it’s not too loud. Let me see. Okay, yeah, so I just played this, this is the com­mon sequence con­sists of six iden­ti­cal tones. Now, on 25% of tri­als, on a more minor­i­ty of tri­als, peo­ple will actu­al­ly hear a rare sequence. So this first sequence will start off the same way as the com­mon sequences do with five tones, but at the end, it will have a dif­fer­ent end­ing. So in this graph­ic here, it shows that it ends on an tone that has a dif­fer­ent pitch. And so this rare sequence will sound like this.

Okay, so now you can kind of imag­ine that some­times on a rare tri­al par­tic­i­pants would be like sur­prised, and we kind of want­ed to cap­ture or to analyse how does risky deci­sion mak­ing dif­fer on these rare tri­als as opposed to com­mon tri­als? Okay, so this is how we approached the way that we col­lect­ed our data.

So there were sev­er­al fac­tors that drew us into con­duct­ing all of our exper­i­ments online, because of the many advan­tages of doing online research, which includes access hav­ing access to large pools of par­tic­i­pants, and we also have, you know, the abil­i­ty to col­lect large and also diverse sam­ples, like for exam­ple, in Pro­lif­ic there’s the option to gen­der bal­ance our sam­ples, which is a very nice fea­ture. And also, prob­a­bly the biggest advan­tage is that it’s extreme­ly time effi­cient to con­duct stud­ies online. Typ­i­cal­ly in the lab, if you want­ed to col­lect a dataset of 100 par­tic­i­pants, it could take months. And it can be incred­i­bly expen­sive and time and mon­ey to run. But the fact that we can press a but­ton and essen­tial­ly col­lect our whole dataset in a day is a huge plus.

How­ev­er, all of this flex­i­bil­i­ty and con­ve­nience does come at the expense of hav­ing max­i­mum amounts of exper­i­men­tal con­trol over our par­tic­i­pants envi­ron­ment. In our case, the crux of our study was real­ly to see how a spe­cif­ic sound manip­u­la­tion can influ­ence peo­ple’s behav­iour. And so it’s extreme­ly impor­tant for us to make sure that the sound manip­u­la­tion is real­ly doing its job, so that we know that our results can be trust­ed and are valid. So thus, we came up with four dif­fer­ent con­sid­er­a­tions, which have to do with kind of address­ing some of the com­mon dis­ad­van­tages of online research.

The first one is get­ting the ques­tion is the sound even on? So this sounds triv­ial, almost. But how­ev­er, when peo­ple are doing exper­i­ments at home, they’re using dif­fer­ent browsers they might have ad block­ers on. So there’s no guar­an­tee that, you know, due to tech­ni­cal issues or some­thing they, for some rea­son, can’t hear the sounds. Anoth­er one is does the audio have suf­fi­cient sound qual­i­ty and clar­i­ty. So this is a big one, because we can’t con­trol the types of audi­to­ry equip­ment peo­ple use. And so the vari­abil­i­ty there is immense. And we want to find a way to con­straint that. Third one is, are there dis­trac­tions or back­ground noise? Yeah, so par­tic­i­pants could be doing this out­side, they could be doing this in pub­lic or at home. And espe­cial­ly giv­en that our study is all about study­ing how irrel­e­vant sur­pris­ing sounds affect peo­ple’s behav­iour, we def­i­nite­ly want those irrel­e­vant, sur­pris­ing sounds not to come from their own envi­ron­ments, but from our task specifically.

And final­ly, we want­ed to make sure that par­tic­i­pants are fol­low­ing basic instruc­tions. So this is not spe­cif­ic to our study. Of course, in gen­er­al, we want par­tic­i­pants to be atten­tive, to be com­pli­ant to instruc­tions and gen­er­al­ly doing our task in good faith. So now I’ll show you how we struc­tured our exper­i­ments. So we had used Goril­la as the host­ing and exper­i­ment build­ing plat­form for our exper­i­ments. And so you can see here it’s like the I drew out a graph­ic sum­maris­ing the exper­i­ment tree that par­tic­i­pants kind of pro­gressed through. So in the first five min­utes of the task, we have par­tic­i­pants com­plete two screen­ers. Both of these were sourced from Goril­las open mate­ri­als library, which is nice.

And so the first one is the brows­er auto­play sound­check so this one’s super basic. All it does is that it plays two sec­onds of like a music clip and ask peo­ple whether or not they can hear the music yes or no. If they can’t, then it leads peo­ple through some instruc­tions on how they can maybe dis­able an ad block­er or some­thing to fix a prob­lem. And oth­er­wise, if they can’t, then they par­tic­i­pants are giv­en the option to exit the study ear­ly and return their sub­mis­sion. We thought this would be ade­quate for address­ing con­sid­er­a­tion one which is whether the sound is on or not. Then peo­ple would progress into doing the head­phone screen. So this is based off of the loud­ness judge­ment test devel­oped by Whit and col­leagues. And essen­tial­ly all it does is that it has par­tic­i­pants lis­ten to three, a sequence of like three audi­to­ry tones, and then par­tic­i­pants then have to label which one sounds the qui­etest and what’s impor­tant to note is that, um, this screen­er is real­ly easy to pass if you’re wear­ing head­phones. But it’s dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish dis­crim­i­nate between the three tones if you were play­ing sound from your com­put­er, but not wear­ing head­phones. So essen­tial­ly, those who achieved more than five out of six in accu­ra­cy for this screen­er would pass the screen.

So over­all, these two, five these screen­ers in the begin­ning result­ed in around a 30% exclu­sion rate in our exper­i­ments. And so we col­lect­ed enough data so that by the end, we were able to analyse 200 par­tic­i­pants in our main risk tak­ing task.

Okay, and very quick­ly, I’ll now talk about some of the spec­i­fi­ca­tions we use for pro­lif­ic so we use pro­lif­ic as our main plat­form for recruit­ing our par­tic­i­pants. For the device require­ments we just made explic­it that desk­top is required, and also that there’s audio in the exper­i­ment. And in the study descrip­tion, we tried our best to be as upfront and clear as pos­si­ble. This is not what we wrote for par­tic­i­pants ver­ba­tim. But essen­tial­ly, we want­ed to get two mes­sages across, we want­ed to make sure peo­ple’s ad block­er was turned off. And also that head­phones are a required part of doing this exper­i­ment. So we want­ed to put that upfront before peo­ple even accept­ed the study and did the screen­ers. And last­ly, for the pre screen­ing that we did on pro­lif­ic, we kept it quite loose actu­al­ly. We exclud­ed par­tic­i­pants from pre­vi­ous stud­ies. So we had use pro­lif­ic to recruit par­tic­i­pants to do pilot ver­sions of ear­li­er iter­a­tions of our exper­i­ment. So of course, we did­n’t want to invite those same par­tic­i­pants to come back into our main study.

Alright, so now that I’ve gone over the nuts and bolts of how we ran this exper­i­ment, I’ll talk about the results that we found. So in front of you, at the top, you see the two exper­i­ment like par­a­digm descrip­tions, it’s of exper­i­ments one and exper­i­ments two each that we col­lect­ed 200 par­tic­i­pants on. They’re vir­tu­al­ly iden­ti­cal in terms of the kind of struc­ture where there 75% of tri­als are com­mon. 25% of tri­als are rare with like a deviant end­ing, but the only dif­fer­ence is that For exper­i­ment two, we peri­od­i­cal­ly switch the sides of the stim­uli left and right, every 10 tri­als or so. But oth­er­wise, our pre­dic­tions for the two exper­i­ments would be very similar.

So what we found was that sur­pris­ing sounds increase peo­ple’s risk tak­ing. So the plot you see on the left here, what I’ve done was that I took the dif­fer­ence of the risk tak­ing rate of rare tri­als minus com­mon tri­als. So since these bars are sig­nif­i­cant­ly pos­i­tive, that sug­gests that peo­ple are tak­ing more risks for rare tri­als rel­a­tive to com­mon tri­als. And what’s nice is that exper­i­ments one and exper­i­ments two are both in agree­ment with each oth­er on this one this result.

But from these plots alone, we can’t tell whether this increase in risk tak­ing is dri­ven by only like a sub­set of tri­als, for exam­ple. So one ques­tion I had was, oh, is this dri­ven by gain tri­als only, for exam­ple, so what I did was that I com­bined these two datasets. So I had enough data, and I broke out all the tri­als into gain tri­als and makes tri­als and last tri­al types. And then I plot­ted that against the rate at which peo­ple chose the risky option. So what you can see here is that there’s based on this kind of stair step look­ing pat­tern, irre­spec­tive of the tri­al type, so in all three tri­al types, par­tic­i­pants showed increased rate risk tak­ing for rare ver­sus com­mon tri­als. So what this is sug­gest­ing now is that not only are peo­ple tak­ing more risks, just in gen­er­al, we can see that it’s hap­pen­ing in all dif­fer­ent types of tri­al types, irre­spec­tive of whether there’s poten­tial wins or poten­tial loss­es at stake.

So with this kind of sys­tem­at­ic effect of risk tak­ing, we went to cap­ture this in terms of a com­pu­ta­tion­al mod­el. So one of the advan­tages of using this real­ly basic risk tak­ing par­a­digm is that it’s very well char­ac­terised com­pu­ta­tion­al­ly. So there’s a foun­da­tion­al the­o­ry called Prospect The­o­ry, which cap­tures peo­ple’s risk tak­ing pref­er­ences as a func­tion of peo­ple’s loss aver­sion, there’s a para­me­ter for that there’s para­me­ters for risk aver­sion for gains and loss­es. And final­ly, there’s a choice sto­cha­sisi­ty parameter.

On top of this, on top of Prospect The­o­ry, we went ahead and added an addi­tion­al risky bias dif­fer­ence para­me­ter, essen­tial­ly, is a cap­ture of val­ue inde­pen­dent bias, that would cap­ture the dif­fer­ence between risk tak­ing for rare tri­als ver­sus com­mon tri­als. So this risky bias dif­fer­ence para­me­ter, a pos­i­tive one would indi­cate increased risk tak­ing for rare tri­als, where­as a neg­a­tive risky bias para­me­ter cap­tures have a bias towards the safe option. So on the left is a plot that you’ve already seen. And on the right, I took the mod­el derived risky bias dif­fer­ence para­me­ter fit for the two exper­i­ments. And what we can see is that it’s sig­nif­i­cant­ly pos­i­tive in both exper­i­ments match­ing what we see in the mod­el and three mod­el inde­pen­dent analy­ses. So this is quite reas­sur­ing, actually,

that we found this. Okay, so on the left, you see this, the exper­i­ment designs for exper­i­ment one and two. And what we found now is that fol­low­ing risky, fol­low­ing rare sequences, par­tic­i­pants are increas­ing their risk tak­ing. How­ev­er, from these two exper­i­ments, the way that it’s designed, we’re not sure if peo­ple are tak­ing more risks, because peo­ple are kind of recog­nis­ing that they’ve heard a rare sequence because it hap­pens 25% of the time, or if it’s because peo­ple are sim­ply react­ing to the deviant tone at the end of the rare sequence.

So what I did was that I devised two oth­er exper­i­ments for exper­i­ments 3 and exper­i­ment 4 such that now the rare sequence no longer ends in a rare or nov­el end­ing, instead, it ends on the com­mon tone. So the ques­tion now becomes, after rare sequences do peo­ple still increase the risk tak­ing, and what you can prob­a­bly guess from the title, it actu­al­ly com­plete­ly elim­i­nates the effect. So now I’m show­ing that when we cut in a sense, I remove a local sur­prise from the rare sequence, I actu­al­ly get rid of the risk tak­ing effect, which is a real­ly cool and strik­ing result.

All right, so let me sum­marise what I found. Inci­den­tal sur­pris­ing sounds real­ly do sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly increase risk tak­ing. And I showed that in exper­i­ments 1 and 2, and I showed that this effect is con­sis­tent, con­sis­tent for a bit both behav­iour­al and com­pu­ta­tion­al mod­el­ling based analy­ses. Next, I see that the risk tak­ing effect of sur­prise can be elim­i­nat­ed sim­ply by slight­ly, you know, tweak­ing the sta­tis­tics of the audi­to­ry sur­prise. And as I showed, with the meth­ods and how I built the exper­i­ment, I showed that head­phones, read­ers were used to enhance data qual­i­ty, and helped address the chal­lenges and you can call them dis­ad­van­tages of online research.

So that’s the thing about like these dis­ad­van­tages of online research, right, such as, for exam­ple, hav­ing poor con­trol over exper­i­ments set­ting or hav­ing lack of exper­i­menters super­vi­sion, at the end of the day, these could all turn out to be a huge advan­tage at the end, which is some­thing I found once you’ve estab­lished your results. So essen­tial­ly, the par­tic­i­pants from my study were recruit­ed from over 12 dif­fer­ent coun­tries. Were in the pres­ence of poten­tial dis­trac­tions and we’re prob­a­bly doing the exper­i­ment dur­ing dif­fer­ent times of the day. And yet, despite all of that, we’re still able to char­ac­terise clear sys­tem­at­ic effects of sur­pris­ing sounds on peo­ple’s risky deci­sion mak­ing that were robust to all these vary­ing conditions.

So doing this exper­i­ment online instead of in the lab def­i­nite­ly made things hard­er for us in some ways, because we had workarounds that we need­ed to do, but it ulti­mate­ly made the results feel a lot stronger and more gen­er­al­iz­able. So I think this gives me a lot of opti­mism about doing online research in the future. And it can be daunt­ing, but also real­ly reward­ing in the dis­cov­er­ies it allows us to make. Thank you very much. That’s the end.

Jo Ever­shed 15:37
Glo­ria, that’s amaz­ing. I love that last point you were mak­ing, how we, we love the con­trol of the lab, it feels safe. And, and con­trolled. I’m sor­ry for all the con­trols lab, but it makes our results less robust and less reli­able. And of course, tak­ing the research online makes it hard­er to get it right and to get it get that data and to design your exper­i­ment so that it so that it works and that you’re, you believe the data, but when it does work, you feel much more con­fi­dent that the result is robust, and is going to per­sist into dif­fer­ent envi­ron­ments. So that was a real­ly love­ly point at the end.

I did have one ques­tion for you. Once par­tic­i­pants have passed the head­phone screen­er at the begin­ning, how do you make sure that par­tic­i­pants con­tin­ue to play the task with sound through­out the whole exper­i­ment? Is some­thing? Is that some­thing you looked at?

Glo­ria Feng 16:28
Yeah, that’s a real­ly good ques­tion, Joe. So one thing that I did­n’t dis­cuss in this exper­i­ment was I only focused on the pre screen­ers that hap­pened before the exper­i­ment. So we actu­al­ly had some ques­tions les­son checks, dur­ing the actu­al main exper­i­ment, the main task, so what we’ve done was that we call this like expec­ta­tion checks where par­tic­i­pants have to lis­ten to, they have to play both tone sequences, and then they have to label which one they felt was com­mon or not. So this was kind of a test of like, whether they’ve, you know, lis­tened to instruc­tions on keep­ing their head­phones in, through­out the task, or also have they com­pre­hend­ed the task enough to kind of dis­tin­guish between what is rare and com­mon. So we asked this, both at the begin­ning of the exper­i­ment, and also at the end of the experiment.

And while we did realise that, you know, some, I guess, bad actors could poten­tial­ly not be wear­ing head­phones through­out the whole exper­i­ment, and then when they see a ques­tion like this pop up, you know, put the head­phones back in, and then lis­ten to it and answer it cor­rect­ly. So in that way, the check is still cor­rupt­ible. But we think that that only by prob­a­bly can’t be very com­mon, I sup­pose. So, we did have this. And thank­ful­ly, after look­ing at my data to see peo­ple’s accu­ra­cy on these expec­ta­tion ques­tions, on aver­age accu­ra­cy on it was like above 95%. So that was quite reas­sur­ing over­all. So it sound­ed like after the screen­er peo­ple did seem to be quite good at the task and also able to dis­crim­i­nate between the dif­fer­ent sequences.

Jo Ever­shed 17:56
Yeah, so it sounds like we don’t get many bad actors are pro­lif­ic, which is what they promised us. I don’t know, if you’re here from the talk from Pro­lif­ic this morn­ing, they do quite a lot of checks, to make sure we get good qual­i­ty par­tic­i­pants from them. So that’s all very reas­sur­ing. There is one ques­tion in the q&a, which is from Lau­ra, this result seems oppo­site to what one would expect. How do you inter­pret the increased risk tak­ing after sur­pris­ing sound if they might process this as a threat cue, rather than your tones, which are fair­ly neu­tral, I guess.

Glo­ria Feng 18:26
Yeah, exact­ly. Um, thanks. That’s a great ques­tion. And that’s some­thing that we had been think­ing about a lot, which is like, what is the valence of these sur­pris­ing sounds that are occur­ring? So I guess, we tried our best to keep that as neu­tral as pos­si­ble. And that, like the, we weren’t using stim­uli that are known to be aver­sive, such as like screams or things like that. It is very inter­est­ing that it increas­es our risk tak­ing, I think the way that we were kind of under­stand­ing this effect was that there was kind of like an ori­ent­ing response that par­tic­i­pants might be get­ting when they are hear­ing the sur­pris­ing tone, which we thought was con­sis­tent with, like approach behav­iour with in the sense of like, you can think of a nat­u­ral­is­tic exam­ple, like a frog. And sud­den­ly there’s a stim­u­lus that comes up like a fly, and then imme­di­ate­ly decides to approach that stim­u­lus. So based on the behav­iour­al results that we found that this was kind of like a val­ue inde­pen­dent, like, approach motion. We thought this was con­sis­tent with this, like, bias towards risky deci­sion mak­ing. Yeah.

Jo Ever­shed 19:34
Bril­liant, thank you, Glo­ria. Thank you so much for your time Gloria.

Get on the Registration List

BeOnline is the conference to learn all about online behavioral research. It's the ideal place to discover the challenges and benefits of online research and to learn from pioneers. If that sounds interesting to you, then click the button below to register for the 2022 conference on Tuesday July 5th. You will be the first to know when we release new content and timings for BeOnline 2022.

With thanks to our sponsors!