Exploring the dynamic interplay between learning and working memory within various cognitive contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The intertwined relationship between reinforcement learning and working memory in the brain is a complex subject, widely studied across various domains in neuroscience. Research efforts have focused on identifying the specific brain areas responsible for these functions, understanding their contributions in accomplishing the related tasks, and exploring their adaptability under conditions such as cognitive impairment or aging. Methods: Numerous models have been introduced to formulate either these two subsystems of reinforcement learning and working memory separately or their combination and relationship in executing cognitive tasks. This study adopts the RLWM model as a computational framework to analyze the behavioral parameters of subjects with varying cognitive abilities due to age or cognitive status. A related RLWM task is employed to assess a group of subjects across different age groups and cognitive abilities, as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool (MoCA). Results: Analysis reveals a decline in overall performance accuracy and speed with differing age groups (young vs. middle-aged). Significant differences are observed in model parameters such as learning rate, WM decay, and decision noise. Furthermore, among the middle-aged group, distinctions emerge between subjects categorized as normal vs. MCI based on MoCA scores, notably in speed, performance accuracy, and decision noise.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".