Learning at Variable Attentional Load Requires Cooperation of Working Memory, Meta-learning, and Attention-augmented Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
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 aim to 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 monkeys is consistently best predicted with a model combining (i) fast working memory and (ii) slower reinforcement learning from differently weighted positive and negative prediction errors as well as (iii) selective suppression of nonchosen feature values and (iv) a meta-learning mechanism that enhances exploration rates based on a memory trace of recent errors. The optimal model parameter settings suggest that these mechanisms cooperate differently at low and high attentional loads. Whereas 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 suggest how they may cooperate when subjects flexibly adjust to environments with variable real-world attentional demands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".