Abstract

Humans frequently perform tasks collaboratively in daily life. Collaborating with others may or may not result in higher task performance than if one were to complete the task alone (i.e., a collective benefit). A recent study on collective benefits in perceptual decision-making showed that dyad members with similar individual performances attain collective benefit. However, little is known about the physiological basis of these results. Here, we replicate this earlier work and also investigate the neurophysiological correlates of decision-making using EEG. In a two-interval forced-choice task, co-actors individually indicated presence of a target stimulus with a higher contrast and then indicated their confidence on a rating scale. Viewing the individual ratings, dyads made a joint decision. Replicating earlier work, we found a positive correlation between the similarity of individual performances and collective benefit. We analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) in three phases (i.e., stimulus onset, response and feedback) using explorative cluster mass permutation tests. At stimulus onset, ERPs were significantly linearly related to our manipulation of contrast differences, validating our manipulation of task difficulty. For individual and joint responses, we found a significant centro-parietal error-related positivity for correct versus incorrect responses, which suggests that accuracy is already evaluated at the response level. At feedback presentation, we found a significant late positive fronto-central potential elicited by incorrect joint responses. In sum, these results demonstrate that response- and feedback-related components elicited by an error-monitoring system differentially integrate conflicting information exchanged during the joint decision-making process.

Highlights

  • In the words of Lyn Collins popularized by Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock, “It takes two to make a thing go right.” In a world inundated by such popular culture references, it is evident that there is a common socio‐cultural belief in the benefits of collaboration

  • ERPs were significantly linearly related to our manipulation of contrast differences, Abbreviations: 2IFC, two‐interval forced choice; confidence interval of p (CI), confidence interval; CM, cluster mass; CPDI, Confidence Performance Difference Index; DDI, Distribution Difference Index; ERN, error‐related negativity; ERP, event‐related potential; fERN, error‐related feedback negativity; GA, grand average; ICA, independent component analysis; KL‐divergence, Kullback–Leibler divergence; LPP, late positive potential; Pe, error positivity; RP, readiness potential; SD, standard deviation; Sdyad/Smax, ratio of sensitivity between dyad and best member; Sdyad, dyad slope; Smax, slope of the more sensitive participant in a dyad; Smin/Smax, ratio of individual sensitivity similarity; WCS, weighted confidence sharing

  • The current study sought to investigate the neurophysiological correlates of joint action and collective decision‐ making by combining an already‐established perceptual decision‐making paradigm with EEG

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the words of Lyn Collins popularized by Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock, “It takes two to make a thing go right.” In a world inundated by such popular culture references, it is evident that there is a common socio‐cultural belief in the benefits of collaboration. Research investigating group collaboration and its benefits encompasses many domains such as problem solving (Laughlin, Bonner, & Miner, 2002; Laughlin, Hatch, Silver, & Boh, 2006; Trouche, Sander, & Mercier, 2014), motor performance (Ganesh et al, 2014; Masumoto & Inui, 2013; Wahn, Karlinsky, Schmitz, & König, 2018; Wahn, Schmitz, König, & Knoblich, 2016) and perceptual tasks (Bang et al, 2014; Brennan, Chen, Dickinson, Neider, & Zelinsky, 2008; Mahmoodi et al, 2015; Wahn, Czeszumski, & König, 2018; Wahn, Kingstone, & König, 2017, 2018; Wahn, Schwandt, et al, 2016) These studies suggest that information exchange and group dynamics are factors contributing to collective benefit

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call