Quantifying decision-making in dynamic, continuously evolving environments.

During perceptual decision-making tasks, centroparietal electroencephalographic (EEG) potentials report an evidence accumulation-to-bound process that is time locked to trial onset. However, decisions in real-world environments are rarely confined to discrete trials; they instead unfold continuously, with accumulation of time-varying evidence being recency-weighted towards its immediate past. The neural mechanisms supporting recency-weighted continuous decision-making remain unclear. Here, we use a novel continuous task design to study how the centroparietal positivity (CPP) adapts to different environments that place different constraints on evidence accumulation. We show that adaptations in evidence weighting to these different environments are reflected in changes in the CPP. The CPP becomes more sensitive to fluctuations in sensory evidence when large shifts in evidence are less frequent, and the potential is primarily sensitive to fluctuations in decision-relevant (not decision-irrelevant) sensory input. A complementary triphasic component over occipito-parietal cortex encodes the sum of recently accumulated sensory evidence, and its magnitude covaries with parameters describing how different individuals integrate sensory evidence over time. A computational model based on leaky evidence accumulation suggests that these findings can be accounted for by a shift in decision threshold between different environments, which is also reflected in the magnitude of pre-decision EEG activity. Our findings reveal how adaptations in EEG responses reflect flexibility in evidence accumulation to the statistics of dynamic sensory environments.

Auditory mismatch responses are differentially sensitive to changes in muscarinic acetylcholine versus dopamine receptor function.

The auditory mismatch negativity (MMN) has been proposed as a biomarker of NMDA receptor (NMDAR) dysfunction in schizophrenia. Such dysfunction may be caused by aberrant interactions of different neuromodulators with NMDARs, which could explain clinical heterogeneity among patients. In two studies (N = 81 each), we used a double-blind placebo-controlled between-subject design to systematically test whether auditory mismatch responses under varying levels of environmental stability are sensitive to diminishing and enhancing cholinergic vs. dopaminergic function. We found a significant drug × mismatch interaction: while the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist biperiden delayed and topographically shifted mismatch responses, particularly during high stability, this effect could not be detected for amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 receptor antagonist. Neither galantamine nor levodopa, which elevate acetylcholine and dopamine levels, respectively, exerted significant effects on MMN. This differential MMN sensitivity to muscarinic versus dopaminergic receptor function may prove useful for developing tests that predict individual treatment responses in schizophrenia.