The contribution of striatal pseudo-reward prediction errors to value-based decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most studies that have investigated the brain mechanisms underlying learning have focused on the ability to learn simple stimulus-response associations. However, in everyday life, outcomes are often obtained through complex behavioral patterns involving a series of actions. In such scenarios, parallel learning systems are important to reduce the complexity of the learning problem, as proposed in the framework of hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL). One of the key features of HRL is the computation of pseudo-reward prediction errors (PRPEs) which allow the reinforcement of actions that led to a sub-goal before the final goal itself is achieved. Here we wanted to test the hypothesis that, despite not carrying any rewarding value per se , pseudo-rewards might generate a bias in choice behavior when reward contingencies are not well-known or uncertain. Second, we also hypothesized that this bias might be related to the strength of PRPE striatal representations. In order to test these ideas, we developed a novel decision-making paradigm to assess reward prediction errors (RPEs) and PRPEs in two studies (fMRI study: n = 20; behavioural study: n = 19). Our results show that overall participants developed a preference for the most pseudo-rewarding option throughout the task, even though it did not lead to more monetary rewards. fMRI analyses revealed that this preference was predicted by individual differences in the relative striatal sensitivity to PRPEs vs RPEs. Together, our results indicate that pseudo-rewards generate learning signals in the striatum and subsequently bias choice behavior despite their lack of association with actual reward.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".