Publications

Neural correlates of behavioral randomization

Guseva, M., Bogler, C., Allefeld, C., Ziya, E.B., & Haynes, J. D.; Manuscript currently in submission, Preprint available on bioRxiv

In some cases, when we are making decisions, the available choices can appear to be equivalent. When this happens, our choices appear not to be constrained by external factors and instead we can believe to be selecting “randomly”. Furthermore, randomness is sometimes even explicitly required by task conditions such as in random sequence generation (RSG) tasks. This is a challenging task that involves the coordination of multiple cognitive processes, which can include the inhibition of habitual choice patterns and monitoring of the running choice sequence.

It has been shown that random choices are strongly influenced by the way they are instructed. This raises the question whether the brain mechanisms underlying random selection also differ between different task instructions. To assess this, we measured brain activity while participants were engaging in three different variations of a sequence generation task: Based on previous work, participants were instructed to either (1) “generate a random sequence of choices”, (2) “simulate a fair coin toss”, or (3) “choose freely”.

Our results reveal a consistent frontoparietal activation pattern that is shared across all tasks. Specifically, increased activity was observed in bilateral inferior and right middle frontal gyrus, left pre-supplementary motor area, bilateral inferior parietal lobules and portions of anterior insular cortex in both hemispheres. Activity in the mental coin toss condition was higher in right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left (pre-) supplementary motor area, a portion of right inferior frontal gyrus, bilateral superior parietal lobules and bilateral anterior insula. Additionally, our multivariate analysis revealed a distinct region in the right frontal pole to be predictive of the outcome of choices, but only when randomness was explicitly instructed.

These results emphasize that different randomization tasks involve both shared and unique neural mechanisms. Thus, even seemingly similar randomization behavior can be produced by different neural pathways.

Instruction effects on randomness in sequence generation

Guseva, M., Bogler, C., Allefeld, C., & Haynes, J. D. (2023) in Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1113654.

Randomness is a fundamental property of human behavior. It occurs both in the form of intrinsic random variability, say when repetitions of a task yield slightly different behavioral outcomes, or in the form of explicit randomness, say when a person tries to avoid being predicted in a game of rock, paper and scissors. Randomness has frequently been studied using random sequence generation tasks (RSG). A key finding has been that humans are poor at deliberately producing random behavior. At the same time, it has been shown that people might be better randomizers if randomness is only an implicit (rather than an explicit) requirement of the task. We therefore hypothesized that randomization performance might vary with the exact instructions with which randomness is elicited. To test this, we acquired data from a large online sample (n = 388), where every participant made 1,000 binary choices based on one of the following instructions: choose either randomly, freely, irregularly, according to an imaginary coin toss or perform a perceptual guessing task. Our results show significant differences in randomness between the conditions as quantified by conditional entropy and estimated Markov order. The randomization scores were highest in the conditions where people were asked to be irregular or mentally simulate a random event (coin toss) thus yielding recommendations for future studies on randomization behavior.

Surgical face masks do not impair the decoding of facial expressions of negative affect more severely in older than in younger adults

Henke, L., Guseva, M., Wagemans, K., Pischedda, D., Haynes, J. D., Jahn, G., & Anders, S. (2022) in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1), 1-15.

Surgical face masks reduce the spread of airborne pathogens but also disturb the flow of information between individuals. The risk of getting seriously ill after infection with SARS-COV-2 during the present COVID-19 pandemic amplifies with age, suggesting that face masks should be worn especially during face-to-face contact with and between older people. However, the ability to accurately perceive and understand communication signals decreases with age, and it is currently unknown whether face masks impair facial communication more severely in older people. We compared the impact of surgical face masks on dynamic facial emotion recognition in younger (18–30 years) and older (65–85 years) adults (N = 96) in an online study. Participants watched short video clips of young women who facially expressed anger, fear, contempt or sadness. Faces of half of the women were covered by a digitally added surgical face mask. As expected, emotion recognition accuracy declined with age, and face masks reduced emotion recognition accuracy in both younger and older participants. Unexpectedly, the effect of face masks did not differ between age groups. Further analyses showed that masks also reduced the participants’ overall confidence in their emotion judgements, but not their performance awareness (the difference between their confidence ratings for correct and incorrect responses). Again, there were no mask-by-age interactions. Finally, data obtained with a newly developed questionnaire (attitudes towards face masks, atom) suggest that younger and older people do not differ in how much they feel impaired in their understanding of other people’s emotions by face masks or how useful they find face masks in confining the COVID-19 pandemic. In sum, these findings do not provide evidence that the impact of face masks on the decoding of facial signals is disproportionally larger in older people.

Willingness-to-pay for Green Electricity: The Increasing Gap Between Fiction and Reality

Andor, M., Frondel, M., Guseva, M. et al. in Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 40, 199–209 (2016).

This paper presents evidence on preferences for green electricity, drawing on two stated-preference surveys conducted in 2013 and 2015 among 6000 households. It uncovers a strong contrast between the households – rising general acceptance of supporting renewable energy technologies and their shrinking individual willingness-to-pay for green electricity.