Bleeding Risk Associated with Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Critically Ill Patients: A Scoping Review

Humans learn about the environment either directly by interacting with it or indirectly by seeking information about it from social sources such as conspecifics. The degree of confidence in the information obtained through either route should determine the impact that it has on adapting and changing behaviour. We examined whether and how behavioural and neural computations differ during non-social learning as opposed to learning from social sources. Trial-wise confidence judgements about non-social and social information sources offered a window into this learning process. Despite matching exactly the statistical features of social and non-social conditions, confidence judgements were more accurate and less changeable when they were made about social as opposed to non-social information sources. In addition to subjective reports of confidence, differences were also apparent in the Bayesian estimates of participants' subjective beliefs. Univariate activity in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and posterior temporoparietal junction more closely tracked confidence about social as opposed to non-social information sources. In addition, the multivariate patterns of activity in the same areas encoded identities of social information sources compared to non-social information sources. People’s decisions are influenced by their beliefs, which may be based on advice from other humans or, alternatively, on information from non-human sources such as road signs. But which sources do we find more reliable? Although scientists have studied the importance of social context in the way we process information, it is not fully understood how the brain processes information differently depending on who provides it. Trudel et al. investigated the differences in the way humans evaluate information from human sources, such as advisors, compared to non-human sources, like inanimate objects, by monitoring brain activity and analyzing the results using a computational approach. In the experiments, 24 participants received a reward for locating a hidden dot on a circle under two different conditions: they either received a clue on the dot’s location from an image of a human face (social condition), representing an advisor, or from an inanimate object (non-social condition). Participants received information from many different advisors and inanimate objects, and the accuracy of the clues given by any of them varied from source to source. Each time, participants reported whether they thought the advice was reliable. The results of monitoring the participants’ brain activity showed that they used different strategies when assessing the reliability of advice from a human than when the information came from a non-human source. Additionally, participants based their judgments about an advisor more strongly on past experiences with them, that is, if an advisor had given them good advice in the past, they were more likely to rely on their advice. Conversely, judgments about an inanimate object were based more strongly on recent experiences with that object. Interestingly, participants were more certain when making judgments about the accuracy of cues given by advisors compared to inanimate objects, and they also updated their assessment of human sources less according to new evidence that contradicted their initial belief. This suggests that people may form more stable opinions about the reliability of sources when they receive information in social contexts, possibly because they expect more consistent behavior from humans. This stability in judgments about advisors was also reflected in the signal of brain areas that are often involved when interacting with others. The work of Trudel et al. shows that even the suggestion that the source of a piece of advice is human can change how we process the information. This is especially important because humans spend increasingly more time in the digital world. Awareness of our biased assessment of human sources will have implications for designing interactive tools to guide human decision-making as well as strategies to develop critical thinking.