Greater reliance on model-free learning in adolescent anorexia nervosa: An examination of dual-system reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alterations in learning and decision-making systems are thought to contribute to core features of anorexia nervosa (AN), a psychiatric disorder characterized by persistent dietary restriction and weight loss. Instrumental learning theory identifies a dual-system of habit and goal-directed decision-making, linked to model-free and model-based reinforcement learning algorithms. Difficulty arbitrating between these systems, resulting in an over-reliance on one strategy over the other, has been implicated in compulsivity and extreme goal pursuit, both of which are observed in AN. Characterizing alterations in model-free and model-based systems, and their neural correlates, in AN may clarify mechanisms contributing to symptom heterogeneity (e.g., binge/purge symptoms). This study tested whether adolescents with restricting AN (AN-R; n = 36) and binge/purge AN (AN-BP; n = 20) differentially utilized model-based and model-free learning systems compared to a healthy control group (HC; n = 28) during a Markov two-step decision-making task under conditions of reward and punishment. Associations between model-free and model-based learning and resting-state functional connectivity between neural regions of interest, including orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), nucleus accumbens (NAcc), putamen, and sensory motor cortex (SMC) were examined. AN-R showed higher utilization of model-free learning compared to HC for reward, but attenuated model-free and model-based learning for punishment. In AN-R only, higher model-based learning was associated with stronger OFC-to-left NAcc functional connectivity, regions linked to goal-directed behavior. Greater utilization of model-free learning for reward in AN-R may differentiate this group, particularly during adolescence, and facilitate dietary restriction by prioritizing habitual control in rewarding contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".