New model describes cognitive decision making as the collapse of a quantum superstate

August 12, 2015 by Christopher Packham report
Diagram of a state representation of a Markov and a quantum random walk model. In the Markov model, evidence (shaded state) evolves over time by moving from state to state, occupying one definite evidence level at any given time. In the quantum model the decision-maker is in an indefinite evidence state, with each evidence level having a probability amplitude (shadings) at each point in time. Credit: (c) 2015 PNAS; doi:10.1073/pnas.1500688112

(—Decision making in an enormous range of tasks involves the accumulation of evidence in support of different hypotheses. One of the enduring models of evidence accumulation is the Markov random walk (MRW) theory, which assigns a probability to each hypothesis. In an MRW model of decision making, when deciding between two hypotheses, the cumulative evidence for and against each hypothesis reaches different levels at different times, moving particle-like from state to state and only occupying a single definite evidence level at any given point.

But the Markov random walk , based in classical probability theory, runs into problems when confronted with the emerging research consensus that preferences and beliefs are constructed, rather than revealed by judgments and decisions. An international group of psychological researchers now suggests a new model called the quantum random walk (QRW) theory that specifically posits that preferences and beliefs are constructed rather than revealed by judgments and decisions, and they have published the results of an experiment that support this theory in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

By contrast with MRW, the new theory assumes that evidence develops over time in a superposition state analogous to the wave-like state of a photon, and judgements and decisions are made when this indefinite superposition state "collapses" into a definite state of evidence. It's important to note that the researchers are not suggesting that the brain is a quantum computer; they specifically note that their report uses quantum dynamics only metaphorically.

In the experiment, nine study participants completed 112 blocks of 24 trials each over five sessions, in which they viewed a random dot motion stimulus on a screen. A percentage of the dots moved coherently in a single direction. The researchers manipulated the difficulty of the test between trials. In the choice condition, participants were asked to decide whether the coherently moving dots were traveling to the left or the right. In the no-choice condition, participants were prompted by an audio tone simply to make a motor response.

Then participants were asked to rate their confidence that the coherently moving dots were traveling to the right on a scale ranging from 0 (certain left) to 100 percent (certain right). The researchers report that, on average, confidence ratings were much higher when the trajectories of the dots were highly coherent. Confidence ratings were lower in the no-choice condition than in the choice condition, providing evidence against the read-out assumption of MRW theory, which holds that confidence in the choice condition should be higher.

The QRW theory posits that evidence evolves over time, as in MRW, but that judgments and decisions create a new definite state from an indefinite, superposition-like state. "This quantum perspective reconceptualizes how we model uncertainty and formalizes a long-held hypothesis that judgments and decisions create rather than reveal preferences and beliefs," the authors write.

They conclude, "...quantum random walk theory provides a previously unexamined perspective on the nature of the accumulation process that underlies both cognitive and neural theories of ."

Explore further: Certainty in our choices often a matter of time, study finds

More information: "Interference effects of choice on confidence: Quantum characteristics of evidence accumulation." PNAS, published ahead of print August 10, 2015, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1500688112

Decision-making relies on a process of evidence accumulation which generates support for possible hypotheses. Models of this process derived from classical stochastic theories assume that information accumulates by moving across definite levels of evidence, carving out a single trajectory across these levels over time. In contrast, quantum decision models assume that evidence develops over time in a superposition state analogous to a wavelike pattern and that judgments and decisions are constructed by a measurement process by which a definite state of evidence is created from this indefinite state. This constructive process implies that interference effects should arise when multiple responses (measurements) are elicited over time. We report such an interference effect during a motion direction discrimination task. Decisions during the task interfered with subsequent confidence judgments, resulting in less extreme and more accurate judgments than when no decision was elicited. These results provide qualitative and quantitative support for a quantum random walk model of evidence accumulation over the popular Markov random walk model. We discuss the cognitive and neural implications of modeling evidence accumulation as a quantum dynamic system.

Related Stories

Certainty in our choices often a matter of time, study finds

December 17, 2014

When faced with making choices, but lack sufficient evidence to guarantee success, our brain uses elapsed time as a proxy for task difficulty to calculate how confident we should be, a team of neuroscientists has found. Their ...

Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states

July 30, 2014

As a quantum state collapses from a quantum superposition to a classical state or a different superposition, it will follow a path known as a quantum trajectory. For each start and end state there is an optimal or "most likely" ...

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness

May 27, 2015

The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

People show 'blind insight' into decision making performance

November 13, 2014

People can gauge the accuracy of their decisions, even if their decision making performance itself is no better than chance, according to a new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological ...

No qualms about quantum theory

November 26, 2013

A colloquium paper published in European Physical Journal D looks into the alleged issues associated with quantum theory. Berthold-Georg Englert from the National University of Singapore reviews a selection of the potential ...

Recommended for you

Science: Public interest high, literacy stable

October 28, 2016

While public interest in science continues to grow, the level of U.S. scientific literacy remains largely unchanged, according to a survey by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

Experts uncover hidden layers of Jesus' tomb site

October 27, 2016

In the innermost chamber of the site said to be the tomb of Jesus, a restoration team has peeled away a marble layer for the first time in centuries in an effort to reach what it believes is the original rock surface where ...

Important ancient papyrus seized from looters in Israel

October 27, 2016

(—Eitan Klein, a representative of the Israel Antiquities Authority, has announced that an important papyrus document dated to 2,700 years ago has been seized from a group of Palestinian looters who reportedly ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2015
So for simple people like me. The universe isn't revealing more and more of it's secrets. We are seeing it more and more complex.
not rated yet Aug 12, 2015
revealed preferences and beliefs??...That implies they exist prior to experience (or at least, are formed without significant input from the environment, experience, or genetics). And some hold or held that theory?? Basically, just denying cause and effect?? Say it ain't so! Sounds like a straw man argument to me. I assume the real difference between Markov and "Quantum" decision making is either beyond the grasp of this author, beyond his ability to express, or perhaps simply too complex to treat in the space alotted.allotted.
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2015
Reference to Markov is misleading/distracting, as Bayes' Method is an adequate basis and method, certainly for understanding.

It is a tragedy that we don't have E. T. Jaynes with us at this turn of the quantum revolution. What contributions he might have made!
not rated yet Aug 13, 2015
I think that the researchers are too coy.
Come out of the closet and just say it. Abandon objectivism. There is nothing "out there". Just Quantum probabilities. We are collapsed wave functions observing and therefore collapsing wave functions. How THAT is supposed to work I don't know.
I think I'll go to bed. I'm getting a headache.
Aug 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aug 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aug 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aug 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aug 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
not rated yet Aug 13, 2015
Just throw in the word "quantum" to get some attention, even if it is ridiculous.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.