Response-based outcome predictions and confidence regulate feedback processing and learning
- Brown University, United States
- Freie University, Germany
- International Psychoanalytic University Berlin, Germany
- Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany
- University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Abstract
Influential theories emphasize the importance of predictions in learning: we learn from feedback to the extent that it is surprising, and thus conveys new information. Here we explore the hypothesis that surprise depends not only on comparing current events to past experience, but also on online evaluation of performance via internal monitoring. Specifically, we propose that people leverage insights from response-based performance monitoring – outcome predictions and confidence – to control learning from feedback. In line with predictions from a Bayesian inference model, we find that people who are better at calibrating their confidence to the precision of their outcome predictions learn more quickly. Further in line with our proposal, EEG signatures of feedback processing are sensitive to the accuracy of, and confidence in, post-response outcome predictions. Taken together, our results suggest that online predictions and confidence serve to calibrate neural error signals to improve the efficiency of learning.
Data availability
Scripts and source data for all analyses are available under https://github.com/froemero/Outcome-Predictions-and-Confidence-Regulate-Learning.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
NIH Office of the Director (R00 AG054732)
- Matthew R Nassar
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Reviewing Editor
- Tadeusz Wladyslaw Kononowicz, Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA DRF/Joliot, INSERM, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, NeuroSpin center, France
Ethics
Human subjects: The study was performed following the guidelines of the ethics committee of the department of Psychology at Humboldt University. Participants gave informed consent to the experiment and were remunerated with course credits or 8 € per hour.
Version history
- Received: September 4, 2020
- Accepted: April 30, 2021
- Accepted Manuscript published: April 30, 2021 (version 1)
- Version of Record published: May 14, 2021 (version 2)
- Version of Record updated: November 23, 2021 (version 3)
Copyright
© 2021, Frömer et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 3,037
- views
-
- 425
- downloads
-
- 27
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Response-based outcome predictions and confidence regulate feedback processing and learning
eLife 10:e62825.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62825
Further reading
-
- Genetics and Genomics
- Neuroscience
Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the extent to which marmosets carry genetically distinct cells from their siblings.
-
- Neuroscience
We are unresponsive during slow-wave sleep but continue monitoring external events for survival. Our brain wakens us when danger is imminent. If events are non-threatening, our brain might store them for later consideration to improve decision-making. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether novel vocabulary consisting of simultaneously played pseudowords and translation words are encoded/stored during sleep, and which neural-electrical events facilitate encoding/storage. An algorithm for brain-state-dependent stimulation selectively targeted word pairs to slow-wave peaks or troughs. Retrieval tests were given 12 and 36 hr later. These tests required decisions regarding the semantic category of previously sleep-played pseudowords. The sleep-played vocabulary influenced awake decision-making 36 hr later, if targeted to troughs. The words’ linguistic processing raised neural complexity. The words’ semantic-associative encoding was supported by increased theta power during the ensuing peak. Fast-spindle power ramped up during a second peak likely aiding consolidation. Hence, new vocabulary played during slow-wave sleep was stored and influenced decision-making days later.
