MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413856453 · doi:10.1101/2025.08.26.672271

Comparative Computational Modeling of Approach–Avoidance Biases in Suicidal Populations via Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

2025· preprint· en· W4413856453 on OpenAlexaff
Pamina Laessing, Povilas Karvelis, James Kennedy, Clement C. Zai, Peter Dayan, Andreea O. Diaconescu

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceBayesian inferenceBayesian probabilityComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyMachine learningEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pavlovian “approach or avoid” impulses are critical behavioral biases that, in excess, are linked to multiple psychiatric conditions. To investigate how such biases contribute to suicidal thoughts and behaviors, we analyzed data from two clinical populations completing an aversive Go/NoGo task. This task disentangles motor action (Go or NoGo) from outcome valence (escape from, or avoidance of, an aversive stimulus), enabling the isolation of Pavlovian biases from instrumental learning processes. We compared multiple computational models that had previously been proposed to explain Pavlovian tendencies, including reinforcement learning, active inference, and drift diffusion–based approaches. We employed a hierarchical Bayesian inference procedure that treats model identity as a random factor at the individual level, allowing an unbiased determination of which mechanisms most accurately captured participants’ behavior. Across both datasets, models featuring Pavlovian context biases plus a value-decay mechanism best accounted for performance. By contrast, policy-based Pavlovian models and more complex approaches, such as those integrating working memory or active inference, were supported by fewer study participants. These findings suggest that reflexive biases exert a persistent influence on decision-making, and that value decay plays a critical role in shaping behavior over time. Our results demonstrate the importance of systematically comparing and accounting for relevant cognitive processes to explain observed task behaviors. Understanding the factors contributing to task performance may help clarify how Pavlovian tendencies relate to psychopathology, including, in our case, elevated suicide risk. Finally, we illustrate how a complete hierarchical model selection framework can be applied to identify the most plausible mechanisms underlying Pavlovian biases, offering a robust approach for advancing our understanding of task behaviors and establishing clinical utility in future studies. Author summary Automatic “approach or avoid” reactions shape behavior, particularly in stressful or negative situations. In this study, we explored how these reflex-like tendencies might contribute to suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Two clinical groups completed a computerized task measuring responses to unpleasant sounds. Participants made either active responses (pressing a button to stop a sound) or passive responses (refraining from pressing to avoid starting a sound), allowing us to examine the interplay of automatic impulses and learning from past experiences. Our analysis showed that behavior was best explained by a model combining stable “approach or avoid” impulses with a forgetting process that reduced reliance on past experiences over time. More complex models involving strategies or memory-based control were less effective. These findings suggest that individuals with suicidal tendencies may rely on persistent reflex-like behaviors and over-index recent outcomes, compromising their ability to learn in uncertain environmental conditions. Understanding these cognitive processes provides insights into why some individuals feel trapped in harmful patterns of thought and behavior. Our work highlights how identifying shared traits in clinical populations using model-based methods can inform targeted mental health interventions and improve our understanding of cognitive functioning across disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→