Touchscreen response precision is sensitive to the explore/exploit tradeoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The explore/exploit tradeoff is a fundamental property of choice selection during reward-guided decision making. In perceptual decision making, higher certainty decisions are more motorically precise, even when the decision does not require motor accuracy. However, while we can parametrically control uncertainty in perceptual tasks, we do not know what variables - if any - shape motor precision and reflect subjective certainty during reward-guided decision making. Touchscreens are increasingly used across species to measure choice, but provide no tactile feedback on whether an action is precise or not, and therefore provide a valuable opportunity to determine whether actions differ in precision due to explore/exploit state, reward, or individual variables. We find all three of these factors exert independent drives towards increased precision. During exploit states, successive touches to the same choice are closer together than those made in an explore state, consistent with exploit states reflecting higher certainty and/or motor stereotypy in responding. However, exploit decisions might be expected to be rewarded more frequently than explore decisions. We find that exploit choice precision is increased independently of a separate increase in precision due to immediate past reward, suggesting multiple mechanisms regulating choice precision. Finally, we see evidence that male mice in general are less precise in their interactions with the touchscreen than females, even when exploiting a choice. These results suggest that as exploit behavior emerges in reward-guided decision making, individuals become more motorically precise reflecting increased certainty, even when decision choice does not require additional motor accuracy, but this is influenced by individual differences and prior reward. These data uncover the hidden potential for touchscreen tasks in any species to uncover the latent neural states that unite cognition and movement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".