Literature DB >> 33937915

A Case of Divergent Predictions Made by Delta and Decay Rule Learning Models.

Darrell A Worthy1, A Ross Otto2, Astin C Cornwall1, Hilary J Don3, Tyler Davis4.   

Abstract

The Delta and Decay rules are two learning rules used to update expected values in reinforcement learning (RL) models. The delta rule learns average rewards, whereas the decay rule learns cumulative rewards for each option. Participants learned to select between pairs of options that had reward probabilities of .65 (option A) versus .35 (option B) or .75 (option C) versus .25 (option D) on separate trials in a binary-outcome choice task. Crucially, during training there were twice as AB trials as CD trials, therefore participants experienced more cumulative reward from option A even though option C had a higher average reward rate (.75 versus .65). Participants then decided between novel combinations of options (e.g, A versus C). The Decay model predicted more A choices, but the Delta model predicted more C choices, because those respective options had higher cumulative versus average reward values. Results were more in line with the Decay model's predictions. This suggests that people may retrieve memories of cumulative reward to compute expected value instead of learning average rewards for each option.

Entities:  

Keywords:  base rates; decay rule; delta rule; prediction error; probability learning; reinforcement learning

Year:  2018        PMID: 33937915      PMCID: PMC8086699     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogsci


  21 in total

1.  Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision making.

Authors:  Eldad Yechiam; Jerome R Busemeyer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-06

2.  Decision by sampling.

Authors:  Neil Stewart; Nick Chater; Gordon D A Brown
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making.

Authors:  Antonio Rangel; Colin Camerer; P Read Montague
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2008-06-11       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 4.  Instance-based learning: integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience.

Authors:  Cleotilde Gonzalez; Varun Dutt
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis.

Authors:  Anne G E Collins; Michael J Frank
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.386

6.  A Comparison Model of Reinforcement-Learning and Win-Stay-Lose-Shift Decision-Making Processes: A Tribute to W.K. Estes.

Authors:  Darrell A Worthy; W Todd Maddox
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.223

7.  Modulating Episodic Memory Alters Risk Preference during Decision-making.

Authors:  David St-Amand; Signy Sheldon; A Ross Otto
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model.

Authors:  M A Gluck; G H Bower
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1988-09

9.  Dissociating the role of the orbitofrontal cortex and the striatum in the computation of goal values and prediction errors.

Authors:  Todd A Hare; John O'Doherty; Colin F Camerer; Wolfram Schultz; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  A Unifying Probabilistic View of Associative Learning.

Authors:  Samuel J Gershman
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.