Computational modeling of reinforcement learning and functional neuroimaging of probabilistic reversal dissociates compulsive behaviors in Gambling and Cocaine Use Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to adjust to changes in the environment and is essential for adaptive behavior. It can be investigated using laboratory tests such as probabilistic reversal learning (PRL). In individuals with both Cocaine Use Disorder (CUD) and Gambling Disorder (GD), overall impairments in PRL flexibility are observed. However, it is poorly understood whether this impairment depends on the same brain mechanisms in cocaine and gambling addictions. Reinforcement learning (RL) is the process by which rewarding or punishing feedback from the environment is used to adjust behavior, to maximise reward and minimise punishment. Using RL models, a deeper mechanistic explanation of the latent processes underlying cognitive flexibility can be gained. Here, we report results from a re-analysis of PRL data from control participants (n=18) and individuals with either GD (n=18) or CUD (n=20) using a hierarchical Bayesian RL approach. We observed significantly reduced ‘stimulus stickiness’ (i.e., stimulus-bound perseveration) in GD, which may reflect increased exploratory behavior that is insensitive to outcomes. RL parameters were unaffected in CUD. We relate the behavioral findings to their underlying neural substrates through an analysis of task-based fMRI data. We report differences in tracking reward and punishment expected values (EV) in individuals with GD compared to controls, with greater activity during reward EV tracking in the cingulate gyrus and amygdala. In CUD, we observed reduced responses to positive punishment prediction errors (PPE) and increased activity following negative PPEs in the superior frontal gyrus compared to controls. Thus, an RL framework serves to differentiate behavior in a probabilistic learning paradigm in two compulsive disorders, GD and CUD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".