- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Life

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Theory of Rapid Behavioral Inferences Under the Pressure of Time

Ann M. Hermundstad1,*,† and Wiktor F. Młynarski2,3,*,‡

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: hermundstada@janelia.hhmi.org
  • ‡Contact author: mlynarski@bio.lmu.de
PDF

PRX Life 4, 013029 – Published 5 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8m59-vf2m

Abstract

To survive, animals must be able to quickly infer the state of their surroundings. For example, to successfully escape an approaching predator, prey must quickly estimate the direction of approach from incoming sensory stimuli and guide their behavior accordingly. Such rapid inferences are particularly challenging because the animal has only a brief window of time to gather sensory stimuli, and yet the accuracy of inference is critical for survival. Due to evolutionary pressures, nervous systems have likely evolved effective computational strategies that enable accurate inferences under strong time limitations. Traditionally, the relationship between the speed and accuracy of inference has been described by the “speed-accuracy tradeoff” (SAT), which quantifies how the average performance of an ideal observer improves as the observer has more time to collect incoming stimuli. While this trial-averaged description can reasonably account for individual inferences made over long timescales, it does not capture individual inferences on short timescales, when trial-to-trial variability gives rise to diverse patterns of error dynamics. We show that an ideal observer can exploit this single-trial structure by adaptively tracking the dynamics of its belief about the state of the environment, which enables it to speed its own inferences and more reliably track its own error, but also causes it to violate the SAT. We show that these features can be used to improve overall performance during rapid escape. The resulting behavior qualitatively reproduces features of escape behavior in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, whose escapes have presumably been highly optimized by natural selection.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (43)

  1. A. A. Stocker and E. P. Simoncelli, Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception, Nat. Neurosci. 9, 578 (2006).
  2. W. F. Młynarski and A. M. Hermundstad, Adaptive coding for dynamic sensory inference, eLife 7, e32055 (2018).
  3. G. Tavoni, T. Doi, C. Pizzica, V. Balasubramanian, and J. I. Gold, Human inference reflects a normative balance of complexity and accuracy, Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1153 (2022).
  4. G. Tavoni, V. Balasubramanian, and J. I. Gold, What is optimal in optimal inference? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 29, 117 (2019).
  5. D. A. Evans, A. V. Stempel, R. Vale, and T. Branco, Cognitive control of escape behaviour, Trends Cognit. Sci. 23, 334 (2019).
  6. W. E. Cooper and D. T. Blumstein, Escaping from Predators: An Integrative View of Escape Decisions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2015).
  7. P. Domenici, J. M. Blagburn, and J. P. Bacon, Animal escapology I: Theoretical issues and emerging trends in escape trajectories, J. Exp. Biol. 214, 2463 (2011).
  8. G. Card and M. Dickinson, Performance trade-offs in the flight initiation of Drosophila, J. Exp. Biol. 211, 341 (2008).
  9. R. P. Heitz, The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior, Front. Neurosci. 8, 86875 (2014).
  10. R. Bogacz, E.-J. Wagenmakers, B. U. Forstmann, and S. Nieuwenhuis, The neural basis of the speed–accuracy tradeoff, Trends Neurosci. 33, 10 (2010).
  11. M. Dambacher and R. Hübner, Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict, Psychol. Res. 79, 83 (2015).
  12. B. U. Forstmann, R. Ratcliff, and E.-J. Wagenmakers, Sequential sampling models in cognitive neuroscience: Advantages, applications, and extensions, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 641 (2016).
  13. R. Plamondon and A. M. Alimi, Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements, Behav. Brain Sci. 20, 279 (1997).
  14. J. Drugowitsch, G. C. DeAngelis, D. E. Angelaki, and A. Pouget, Tuning the speed-accuracy trade-off to maximize reward rate in multisensory decision-making, eLife 4, e06678 (2015).
  15. A. G. Mendonça, J. Drugowitsch, M. I. Vicente, E. E. DeWitt, A. Pouget, and Z. F. Mainen, The impact of learning on perceptual decisions and its implication for speed-accuracy tradeoffs, Nat. Commun. 11, 2757 (2020).
  16. D. Rinberg, A. Koulakov, and A. Gelperin, Speed-accuracy tradeoff in olfaction, Neuron 51, 351 (2006).
  17. L. Chittka, A. G. Dyer, F. Bock, and A. Dornhaus, Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy, Nature (London) 424, 388 (2003).
  18. T. Latty and M. Beekman, Speed–accuracy trade-offs during foraging decisions in the acellular slime mould Physarum polycephalum, Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 539 (2011).
  19. E. T. Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003).
  20. G. M. Card, Escape behaviors in insects, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 22, 180 (2012).
  21. E. P. Simoncelli, Optimal estimation in sensory systems, Chapter 36 of The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th ed., edited by M. Gazzaniga (MIT Press, 2009), pp. 525.
  22. T. M. Cover, Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1999).
  23. H. Touchette, A basic introduction to large deviations: Theory, applications, simulations, arXiv:1106.4146.
  24. F. Meyniel, M. Sigman, and Z. F. Mainen, Confidence as Bayesian probability: From neural origins to behavior, Neuron 88, 78 (2015).
  25. C. R. Von Reyn, P. Breads, M. Y. Peek, G. Z. Zheng, W. R. Williamson, A. L. Yee, A. Leonardo, and G. M. Card, A spike-timing mechanism for action selection, Nat. Neurosci. 17, 962 (2014).
  26. C. R. Von Reyn, A. Nern, W. R. Williamson, P. Breads, M. Wu, S. Namiki, and G. M. Card, Feature integration drives probabilistic behavior in the drosophila escape response, Neuron 94, 1190 (2017).
  27. R. Eaton, R. Lee, and M. Foreman, The mauthner cell and other identified neurons of the brainstem escape network of fish, Prog. Neurobiol. 63, 467 (2001).
  28. M. Jazayeri and J. A. Movshon, Optimal representation of sensory information by neural populations, Nat. Neurosci. 9, 690 (2006).
  29. Z. Dai, H. Yu, B. K. H. Low, and P. Jaillet, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2019), pp. 1496–1506.
  30. K. J. Arrow, D. Blackwell, and M. A. Girshick, Bayes and minimax solutions of sequential decision problems, Econometrica, J. Econ. Soc. 17213 (1949).
  31. A. E. Brockwell and J. B. Kadane, A gridding method for Bayesian sequential decision problems, J. Comput. Graphical Stat. 12, 566 (2003).
  32. J. Drugowitsch, R. Moreno-Bote, A. K. Churchland, M. N. Shadlen, and A. Pouget, The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making, J. Neurosci. 32, 3612 (2012).
  33. D. A. Evans, A. V. Stempel, R. Vale, S. Ruehle, Y. Lefler, and T. Branco, A synaptic threshold mechanism for computing escape decisions, Nature (London) 558, 590 (2018).
  34. W. Młynarski, Efficient coding of spectrotemporal binaural sounds leads to emergence of the auditory space representation, Front. Comput. Neurosci. 8, 26 (2014).
  35. U. Mugan and M. A. MacIver, Spatial planning with long visual range benefits escape from visual predators in complex naturalistic environments, Nat. Commun. 11, 3057 (2020).
  36. P. Shamash, S. F. Olesen, P. Iordanidou, D. Campagner, N. Banerjee, and T. Branco, Mice learn multi-step routes by memorizing subgoal locations, Nat. Neurosci. 24, 1270 (2021).
  37. S. Bitzer, H. Park, F. Blankenburg, and S. J. Kiebel, Perceptual decision making: Drift-diffusion model is equivalent to a Bayesian model, Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 102 (2014).
  38. S. Tajima, J. Drugowitsch, N. Patel, and A. Pouget, Optimal policy for multi-alternative decisions, Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1503 (2019).
  39. M. N. Shadlen and W. T. Newsome, Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area lip) of the rhesus monkey, J. Neurophysiol. 86, 1916 (2001).
  40. Á. Koblinger, J. Fiser, and M. Lengyel, Representations of uncertainty: Where art thou? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 38, 150 (2021).
  41. I. Temizer, J. C. Donovan, H. Baier, and J. L. Semmelhack, A visual pathway for looming-evoked escape in larval zebrafish, Curr. Biol. 25, 1823 (2015).
  42. K. P. Murphy, Conjugate Bayesian analysis of the Gaussian distribution (2007), https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Papers/bayesGauss.pdf.
  43. P. Berens, Circstat: A MATLAB toolbox for circular statistics, J. Stat. Software 31, 1 (2009).

Outline

Information

PRX Life 4, 013029– Published 5 March, 2026
  • Received 29 May 2025
  • Accepted 11 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation