Abstract

Cross-species studies are important for a comprehensive understanding of brain functions. However, direct quantitative comparison of behaviors across species presents a significant challenge. To enable such comparisons in perceptual decision-making, we developed a synchronized evidence accumulation task for human and non-human animals, by aligning mechanics, stimuli, and training. The task was readily learned by rats, mice and humans, with each species exhibiting qualitatively similar performance. Quantitative model comparison revealed that all three species employed an evidence accumulation strategy, but differed in speed, accuracy, and key decision parameters. Human performance prioritized accuracy, whereas rodent performance was limited by internal time-pressure. Rats optimized reward rate, while mice appeared to switch between evidence accumulation and other strategies trial-to-trial. Together, these results reveal striking similarities and species-specific priorities in decision-making. Furthermore, the synchronized behavioral framework we present may facilitate future studies involving cross-species comparisons, such as evaluating the face validity of animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders. HighlightsO_LIDevelopment of an evidence accumulation task for rats and mice C_LIO_LISynchronized video game allows direct comparisons with humans C_LIO_LIRat, mouse and human behavior are well fit by the same decision models C_LIO_LIModel parameters reveal species-specific priorities in accumulation strategy C_LI