Literature DB >> 31017845

Policies or knowledge: priors differ between a perceptual and sensorimotor task.

Claire Chambers1, Hugo Fernandes1, Konrad Paul Kording1.   

Abstract

If the brain abstractly represents probability distributions as knowledge, then the modality of a decision, e.g., movement vs. perception, should not matter. If, on the other hand, learned representations are policies, they may be specific to the task where learning takes place. Here, we test this by asking whether a learned spatial prior generalizes from a sensorimotor estimation task to a two-alternative-forced choice (2-Afc) perceptual comparison task. A model and simulation-based analysis revealed that while participants learn prior distribution in the sensorimotor estimation task, measured priors are consistently broader than sensorimotor priors in the 2-Afc task. That the prior does not fully generalize suggests that sensorimotor priors are more like policies than knowledge. In disagreement with standard Bayesian thought, the modality of the decision has a strong influence on the implied prior distributions. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We do not know whether the brain represents abstract and generalizable knowledge or task-specific policies that map internal states to actions. We find that learning in a sensorimotor task does not generalize strongly to a perceptual task, suggesting that humans learned policies and did not truly acquire knowledge. Priors differ across tasks, thus casting doubt on the central tenet of many Bayesian models, that the brain's representation of the world is built on generalizable knowledge.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian; decision-making; generalization; knowledge; policies; sensorimotor

Year:  2019        PMID: 31017845      PMCID: PMC6620698          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00035.2018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  29 in total

1.  Generalization as a behavioral window to the neural mechanisms of learning internal models.

Authors:  Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.161

2.  Reaching for visual cues to depth: the brain combines depth cues differently for motor control and perception.

Authors:  David C Knill
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-02-16       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 3.  The computational neurobiology of learning and reward.

Authors:  Nathaniel D Daw; Kenji Doya
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2006-03-24       Impact factor: 6.627

4.  Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.

Authors:  Joshua B Tenenbaum; Thomas L Griffiths; Charles Kemp
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Using psychophysics to ask if the brain samples or maximizes.

Authors:  Daniel E Acuna; Max Berniker; Hugo L Fernandes; Konrad P Kording
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  The generalization of prior uncertainty during reaching.

Authors:  Hugo L Fernandes; Ian H Stevenson; Iris Vilares; Konrad P Kording
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Efficient coding explains the universal law of generalization in human perception.

Authors:  Chris R Sims
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples.

Authors:  Edward Vul; Noah Goodman; Thomas L Griffiths; Joshua B Tenenbaum
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-01-28

9.  Variability in the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex and Vestibular Perception.

Authors:  Sirine Nouri; Faisal Karmali
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.590

Review 10.  The ubiquity of model-based reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Bradley B Doll; Dylan A Simon; Nathaniel D Daw
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 6.627

View more
  2 in total

1.  Judgements of hand location and hand spacing show minimal proprioceptive drift.

Authors:  Alex Rana; Annie A Butler; Simon C Gandevia; Martin E Héroux
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Although optimal models are useful, optimality claims are not that common.

Authors:  Claire Chambers; Konrad Paul Kording
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 21.357

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.