Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour
Fig 5
(a, b) Number of participants better described by the hybrid variant (pink) or the GLA (grey), dependent on strength of attraction (a) and compromise (b) effects. Participants with strong attraction effects were better described by the hybrid variant. (c, d) Individual observed and predicted RST in attraction (c) and compromise trials (d). Compared to GLA (Fig 3I and 3J), the hybrid model better predicted strong attraction effects for some participants. Predictions of compromise effects are similar. (e, f) Observed and model-predicted probability of choosing the target alternative, depending on the target’s relative dwell time advantage. Like other gaze-dependent models (Fig 3), the hybrid variant generally captured the positive association between gaze and choice. In contrast to GLA, however, it predicted an overall higher probability of choosing the target in attraction trials (e). Predictions in compromise trials (f) are similar to GLA. White bars and error bars indicate mean ± s.e. observed data from even-numbered trials. Model predictions are based on 50 simulations for each odd-numbered trial.