Stepwise updating of probabilities is neither universal nor fully explained by motor costs.

Abstract

Often our expectations are set by sampling many times from the same distribution. When that distribution changes, so should our expectations. If we want to decide whether to take our umbrella today we need to have tracked, and updated, our estimate of the probability of rain by reference to recent temperatures and precipitation. Under debate is whether we update our mental estimates of probabilities given each new incoming piece of evidence or whether we stick with a current estimate until it becomes clearly in need of change. Previous research has suggested that participant estimates of running probabilities are not updated on every trial, but only intermittently. This has been used to support change-point models of probability updating. However, such a pattern could also be explained by the way common laboratory procedures impose a motor cost to update the probability report. This study was designed to remove the motor confound. Our procedure required similar motor actions for both changing and maintaining one's probability estimate. At a group level, motor cost did affect updating frequency and removing the default response option encouraged more frequent updating. However, intermittent updating response patterns did not disappear completely. Despite this equivalence in response effort, some participants, even when forced to make a new estimate on every trial, continued to update rarely while other participants meticulously updated every trial. We conclude deliberate updating frequency is heterogenous but intermittent updating is not simply an artifact of motor cost.