Hippocampal Contribution to Probabilistic Feedback Learning: Modeling Observation- and Reinforcement-based Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simple probabilistic reinforcement learning is recognized as a striatum-based learning system, but in recent years, has also been associated with hippocampal involvement. This study examined whether such involvement may be attributed to observation-based learning (OL) processes, running in parallel to striatum-based reinforcement learning. A computational model of OL, mirroring classic models of reinforcement-based learning (RL), was constructed and applied to the neuroimaging data set of Palombo, Hayes, Reid, and Verfaellie [2019. Hippocampal contributions to value-based learning: Converging evidence from fMRI and amnesia. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 19(3), 523-536]. Results suggested that OL processes may indeed take place concomitantly to reinforcement learning and involve activation of the hippocampus and central orbitofrontal cortex. However, rather than independent mechanisms running in parallel, the brain correlates of the OL and RL prediction errors indicated collaboration between systems, with direct implication of the hippocampus in computations of the discrepancy between the expected and actual reinforcing values of actions. These findings are consistent with previous accounts of a role for the hippocampus in encoding the strength of observed stimulus-outcome associations, with updating of such associations through striatal reinforcement-based computations. In addition, enhanced negative RL prediction error signaling was found in the anterior insula with greater use of OL over RL processes. This result may suggest an additional mode of collaboration between the OL and RL systems, implicating the error monitoring network.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".