# Citation

Bosch, E.A. (Ella), Fritsche, M. (Matthias), Ehinger, B.V. (Benedikt), Lange, F.P. de (Floris) (2020).
Opposite effects of choice history and evidence history resolve a paradox of sequential choice bias [Data set].
https://doi.org/10.34973/1wad-3171.

# Abstract

Perceptual decisions are biased towards previous decisions. Previous research suggests that this choice repetition bias is increased after previous decisions of high confidence, as inferred from response time measures (Urai et al., 2017), but also when previous decisions were based on weak sensory evidence (Akaishi et al., 2014). As weak sensory evidence is typically associated with low confidence, these previous findings appear conflicting. To resolve this conflict, we set out to investigate the effect of decision confidence on choice repetition more directly by measuring explicit confidence ratings in a motion coherence discrimination task. Moreover, we explored how choice and evidence history jointly affect subsequent perceptual choices. We found that participants were more likely to repeat previous choices of high subjective confidence, as well as previous fast choices, confirming the boost of choice repetition with decision confidence. Furthermore, we discovered that current choices were biased away from the previous evidence direction, and that this effect grew with previous evidence strength. These findings point towards simultaneous biases of choice repetition, modulated by decision confidence, and evidence adaptation, modulated by the strength of evidence, which bias current perceptual decisions in opposite directions.

# Background information

You can find more information, including relevant publications pertaining to this dataset on the collection overview page at https://doi.org/10.34973/1wad-3171.

A complete list of files that are part of this dataset can be found in the file MANIFEST.txt, including a SHA256 hash for each file to allow verification of correct data transfer.

# Restrictions on data access and reuse 

The access to and use of this dataset is only allowed under the conditions listed in the data use agreement, as detailed in the file LICENSE.txt. 

Neither the Donders Institute or Radboud University, nor the researchers that provide this dataset should be included as an author of publications or presentations if this authorship would be based solely on the use of this data. 

However, we ask you to acknowledge the use of the data and data derived from the data when publicly presenting any results or algorithms that benefitted from their use:

    1) Papers, book chapters, books, posters, oral presentations, and all other presentations of results derived from the data should acknowledge the origin of the data as follows: "Data were provided (in part) by the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen".
    2) Authors of publications or presentations using the data should cite relevant publications describing the methods developed and used by the Donders Institute to acquire and process the data. The specific publications that are appropriate to cite in any given study will depend on what the data were used for and for what purposes. When applicable, a list of publications will be specified on the collection overview page.