MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400770748 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0270-24.2024

From Learning to Choosing: How Decision-Making Evolves with Experience in Rats

2024· article· en· W4400770748 sur OpenAlexafffund
Kendra M. Loedige, Mohammed U. Al-youzbaki

Notice bibliographique

RevueeNeuro · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésTwo-alternative forced choiceDeliberationAnimal cognitionPsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyStimulus (psychology)Computer scienceCognitionNeuroscience

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Decision-making is a fundamental process that guides actions by selecting between various options based on their known or presumed outcomes, often using sensory inputs (Carandini and Churchland, 2013).The neural mechanisms by which the brain integrates complex information to make decisions are typically studied by measuring neural recordings, response times, and choice accuracy using well-trained animals (Carandini and Churchland, 2013).These experiments often employ two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) designs, where animals are trained to choose between two stimuli presented simultaneously, assuming that the animal learns the value of each stimulus and decides based on an internal comparative evaluation.However, the traditional 2AFC design may be limited, as it does not consider that stimuli are not encountered simultaneously in nature and that decision-making strategies evolve during learning (White et al., 2024).Kacelnik et al. ( 2011) highlight these concerns, arguing that animals' choices on a 2AFC task could be predicted by latencies observed when animals are provided with a single offer.Furthermore, they suggest that the act of deliberation, observed when animals slow their response times to make a choice, could be an artifact produced as animals learn the 2AFC.The recent study by White et al. (2024) in eNeuro aimed to address these limitations by investigating decision-making dynamics during the initial learning phase.By isolating learning values of individual stimuli from the decision-making process, the researchers sought to understand how male rats can make choices for the first time on a 2AFC and how those choices change with experience.The behavioral experiment comprised two main stages: value learning and choice learning (Fig. 1).In the value learning stage, rats were introduced to a single stimulus of either high or low luminance, where nose pokes at the port below the stimulus led to the delivery of a high (16% sucrose) or low (4% sucrose) reward, respectively.The choice learning stage consisted of single-offer trials for two-thirds of the total trials, where rats were presented with either the high or low-luminance cue.The remaining one-third of trials were dual-offer trials, where animals were simultaneously offered both high-and low-luminance stimuli, randomized by side.Rats' response latencies and choice percentages were measured.During the initial stages of choice learning, rats consistently preferred the highluminance stimuli.Median response latencies for dual-offer trials were greater compared with single offers and were greater for single-offer trials with low-value stimuli compared with those with high-value stimuli.These latency differences were most pronounced in the first session but persisted over the remaining sessions.These differences indicate that even after dissociating the value learning stage from the decision-making process, rats showed evidence of deliberation, which remained present with experience.To examine changes in the response time distribution that occur with experience, the authors utilized an ExGauss fitting.In this model, response times are fitted with Gaussian and exponential components, considering the peak and tail of the response time distribution, respectively.This enables the quantification of sensorimotor processing (Gaussian component) and variability (exponential component) within the data.The fitting showed that when choosing the high-value reward, there was increased variability in

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,494

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeNeuroMême sujetMemory and Neural MechanismsTravaux en français237 207