Computational modelling of reinforcement learning and functional neuroimaging of probabilistic reversal for dissociating compulsive behaviours in gambling and cocaine use disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with cocaine use disorder or gambling disorder demonstrate impairments in cognitive flexibility: the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Flexibility is commonly assessed in a laboratory setting using probabilistic reversal learning, which involves reinforcement learning, the process by which feedback from the environment is used to adjust behavior. AIMS: It is poorly understood whether impairments in flexibility differ between individuals with cocaine use and gambling disorders, and how this is instantiated by the brain. We applied computational modelling methods to gain a deeper mechanistic explanation of the latent processes underlying cognitive flexibility across two disorders of compulsivity. METHOD: = 18), using a hierarchical Bayesian approach. Furthermore, we relate behavioural findings to their underlying neural substrates through an analysis of task-based functional magnetic resonanceimaging (fMRI) data. RESULTS: We observed lower 'stimulus stickiness' in gambling disorder, and report differences in tracking expected values in individuals with gambling disorder compared to controls, with greater activity during reward expected value tracking in the cingulate gyrus and amygdala. In cocaine use disorder, we observed lower responses to positive punishment prediction errors and greater activity following negative punishment prediction errors in the superior frontal gyrus compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Using a computational approach, we show that individuals with gambling disorder and cocaine use disorder differed in their perseverative tendencies and in how they tracked value neurally, which has implications for psychiatric classification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".