MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3087881386 · doi:10.1101/2020.09.27.315432

Learning at variable attentional load requires cooperation between working memory, meta-learning and attention-augmented reinforcement learning

2020· preprint· en· W3087881386 on OpenAlexaff
Thilo Womelsdorf, Marcus R. Watson, Paul Tiesinga

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryCognitive psychologyReinforcement learningComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)WeightingFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligencePsychologyMachine learningCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→