Journal of Mathematical PsychologyNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Surprise: a unified theory and experimental predictions
Abstract
Surprising events trigger measurable brain activity and influence human behavior by affecting learning, memory, and decision-making. Currently there is, however, no consensus on the definition of surprise. Here we identify 16 mathematical definitions of surprise in a unifying framework, show how these definitions relate to each other, and prove under what conditions they are indistinguishable. We classify these surprise measures into four main categories: (i) change-point detection surprise, (ii) information gain surprise, (iii) prediction surprise, and (iv) confidence-correction surprise. We design experimental paradigms where different categories make different predictions: we show that surprise-modulation of the speed of learning leads to sensible adaptive behavior only for change-point detection surprise whereas surprise-seeking leads to sensible exploration strategies only for information gain surprise. However, since neither change-point detection surprise nor information gain surprise perfectly reflect the definition of surprise in natural language, a combination of prediction surprise and confidence-correction surprise is needed to capture intuitive aspects of surprise perception. We formalize this combination in a new definition of surprise with testable experimental predictions. We conclude that there cannot be a single surprise measure with all functions and properties previously attributed to surprise. Consequently, we postulate that multiple neural mechanisms exist to detect and signal different aspects of surprise. Author noteAM is grateful to Vasiliki Liakoni, Martin Barry, and Valentin Schmutz for many useful discussions in the course of the last few years, and to Andrew Barto for insightful discussions through and after EPFL Neuro Symposium 2021 on "Surprise, Curiosity and Reward: from Neuroscience to AI". We thank K. Robbins and collaborators for their publicly available experimental data (Robbins et al., 2018). All code needed to reproduce the results reported here will be made publicly available after publication acceptance. This research was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (no. 200020_184615). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alireza Modirshanechi, School of Computer and Communication Sciences and School of Life Sciences, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: alireza.modirshanechi@epfl.ch.
- Citations
- 57
- FWCI
- 6.19
- Field percentile
- top 2%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Behavioral, physiological, and neural signatures of surprise during naturalistic sports viewing
James W. Antony, Thomas H. Hartshorne, … Kenneth A. Norman·NeuronPeer-reviewed·Nov 25, 2020
- Frontal cortex tracks surprise separately for different sensory modalities but engages a common inhibitory control mechanism
Jan R. Wessel, David E. Huber·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 29, 2019
- Neurocomputational underpinnings of expected surprise
Françoise Lecaignard, Olivier Bertrand, … Jérémie Mattout·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Nov 24, 2021
- Brain signatures of surprise in EEG and MEG data
Zahra Mousavi, Mohammad Mahdi Kiani, Hamid K. Aghajan·bioRxiv·Jan 6, 2020
- Brain network dynamics predict moments of surprise across contexts
Zhanbo Zhang, Monica D. Rosenberg·Nature Human BehaviourPeer-reviewed·Dec 23, 2024
- Statistical context dictates the relationship between feedback-related EEG signals and learning
Matthew R. Nassar, Rasmus Bruckner, Michael J. Frank·eLifePeer-reviewed·Aug 21, 2019