How We Learn to Make Decisions: Rapid Propagation of Reinforcement Learning Prediction Errors in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our ability to make decisions is predicated upon our knowledge of the outcomes of the actions available to us. Reinforcement learning theory posits that actions followed by a reward or punishment acquire value through the computation of prediction errors-discrepancies between the predicted and the actual reward. A multitude of neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that rewards and punishments evoke neural responses that appear to reflect reinforcement learning prediction errors [e.g., Krigolson, O. E., Pierce, L. J., Holroyd, C. B., & Tanaka, J. W. Learning to become an expert: Reinforcement learning and the acquisition of perceptual expertise. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1833-1840, 2009; Bayer, H. M., & Glimcher, P. W. Midbrain dopamine neurons encode a quantitative reward prediction error signal. Neuron, 47, 129-141, 2005; O'Doherty, J. P. Reward representations and reward-related learning in the human brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 769-776, 2004; Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109, 679-709, 2002]. Here, we used the brain ERP technique to demonstrate that not only do rewards elicit a neural response akin to a prediction error but also that this signal rapidly diminished and propagated to the time of choice presentation with learning. Specifically, in a simple, learnable gambling task, we show that novel rewards elicited a feedback error-related negativity that rapidly decreased in amplitude with learning. Furthermore, we demonstrate the existence of a reward positivity at choice presentation, a previously unreported ERP component that has a similar timing and topography as the feedback error-related negativity that increased in amplitude with learning. The pattern of results we observed mirrored the output of a computational model that we implemented to compute reward prediction errors and the changes in amplitude of these prediction errors at the time of choice presentation and reward delivery. Our results provide further support that the computations that underlie human learning and decision-making follow reinforcement learning principles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".