Learning at variable attentional load requires cooperation between working memory, meta-learning and attention-augmented reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flexible learning of changing reward contingencies can be realized with different strategies. A fast learning strategy involves using working memory of recently rewarded objects to guide choices. A slower learning strategy uses prediction errors to gradually update value expectations to improve choices. How the fast and slow strategies work together in scenarios with real-world stimulus complexity is not well known. Here, we disentangle their relative contributions in rhesus monkeys while they learned the relevance of object features at variable attentional load. We found that learning behavior across six subjects is consistently best predicted with a model combining ( i ) fast working memory ( ii ) slower reinforcement learning from differently weighted positive and negative prediction errors, as well as ( iii ) selective suppression of non-chosen feature values and ( iv ) a meta-learning mechanism adjusting exploration rates based on a memory trace of recent errors. These mechanisms cooperate differently at low and high attentional loads. While working memory was essential for efficient learning at lower attentional loads, enhanced weighting of negative prediction errors and meta-learning were essential for efficient learning at higher attentional loads. Together, these findings pinpoint a canonical set of learning mechanisms and demonstrate how they cooperate when subjects flexibly adjust to environments with variable real-world attentional demands. Significance statement Learning which visual features are relevant for achieving our goals is challenging in real-world scenarios with multiple distracting features and feature dimensions. It is known that in such scenarios learning benefits significantly from attentional prioritization. Here we show that beyond attention, flexible learning uses a working memory system, a separate learning gain for avoiding negative outcomes, and a meta-learning process that adaptively increases exploration rates whenever errors accumulate. These subcomponent processes of cognitive flexibility depend on distinct learning signals that operate at varying timescales, including the most recent reward outcome (for working memory), memories of recent outcomes (for adjusting exploration), and reward prediction errors (for attention augmented reinforcement learning). These results illustrate the specific mechanisms that cooperate during cognitive flexibility.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".