Literature DB >> 24085507

Adaptive properties of differential learning rates for positive and negative outcomes.

Romain D Cazé1, Matthijs A A van der Meer.   

Abstract

The concept of the reward prediction error-the difference between reward obtained and reward predicted-continues to be a focal point for much theoretical and experimental work in psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Models that rely on reward prediction errors typically assume a single learning rate for positive and negative prediction errors. However, behavioral data indicate that better-than-expected and worse-than-expected outcomes often do not have symmetric impacts on learning and decision-making. Furthermore, distinct circuits within cortico-striatal loops appear to support learning from positive and negative prediction errors, respectively. Such differential learning rates would be expected to lead to biased reward predictions and therefore suboptimal choice performance. Contrary to this intuition, we show that on static "bandit" choice tasks, differential learning rates can be adaptive. This occurs because asymmetric learning enables a better separation of learned reward probabilities. We show analytically how the optimal learning rate asymmetry depends on the reward distribution and implement a biologically plausible algorithm that adapts the balance of positive and negative learning rates from experience. These results suggest specific adaptive advantages for separate, differential learning rates in simple reinforcement learning settings and provide a novel, normative perspective on the interpretation of associated neural data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24085507     DOI: 10.1007/s00422-013-0571-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Cybern        ISSN: 0340-1200            Impact factor:   2.086


  24 in total

1.  Do learning rates adapt to the distribution of rewards?

Authors:  Samuel J Gershman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-10

2.  Valence biases in reinforcement learning shift across adolescence and modulate subsequent memory.

Authors:  Gail M Rosenbaum; Hannah L Grassie; Catherine A Hartley
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  A Normative Account of Confirmation Bias During Reinforcement Learning.

Authors:  Germain Lefebvre; Christopher Summerfield; Rafal Bogacz
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 2.026

4.  Reinforcement learning with associative or discriminative generalization across states and actions: fMRI at 3 T and 7 T.

Authors:  Jaron T Colas; Neil M Dundon; Raphael T Gerraty; Natalie M Saragosa-Harris; Karol P Szymula; Koranis Tanwisuth; J Michael Tyszka; Camilla van Geen; Harang Ju; Arthur W Toga; Joshua I Gold; Dani S Bassett; Catherine A Hartley; Daphna Shohamy; Scott T Grafton; John P O'Doherty
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 5.399

5.  Assessing behavioural profiles following neutral, positive and negative feedback.

Authors:  Rimsa Dahal; Kelsey MacLellan; Danielle Vavrek; Benjamin James Dyson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  The effect of single-dose methylphenidate on the rate of error-driven learning in healthy males: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jonathon R Howlett; He Huang; Cédric M Hysek; Martin P Paulus
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.530

7.  Adolescent-specific patterns of behavior and neural activity during social reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Rebecca M Jones; Leah H Somerville; Jian Li; Erika J Ruberry; Alisa Powers; Natasha Mehta; Jonathan Dyke; B J Casey
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.282

8.  Reinforcement learning and Bayesian inference provide complementary models for the unique advantage of adolescents in stochastic reversal.

Authors:  Maria K Eckstein; Sarah L Master; Ronald E Dahl; Linda Wilbrecht; Anne G E Collins
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 5.811

9.  Three heads are better than two: Comparing learning properties and performances across individuals, dyads, and triads through a computational approach.

Authors:  Tsutomu Harada
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Antipsychotic dose modulates behavioral and neural responses to feedback during reinforcement learning in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Catherine Insel; Jenna Reinen; Jochen Weber; Tor D Wager; L Fredrik Jarskog; Daphna Shohamy; Edward E Smith
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.526

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.