Abstract

Learning and decision making are interactive processes, yet cognitive modelling of error-driven learning and decision making have largely evolved separately. Recently, evidence accumulation models (EAMs) of decision making and reinforcement learning (RL) models of error-driven learning have been combined into joint RL-EAMs that can in principle address these interactions. However, we show that the most commonly used combination, based on the diffusion decision model (DDM) for binary choice, consistently fails to capture crucial aspects of response times observed during reinforcement learning. We propose a new RL-EAM based on an advantage racing diffusion (ARD) framework for choices among two or more options that not only addresses this problem but captures stimulus difficulty, speed-accuracy trade-off, and stimulus-response-mapping reversal effects. The RL-ARD avoids fundamental limitations imposed by the DDM on addressing effects of absolute values of choices, as well as extensions beyond binary choice, and provides a computationally tractable basis for wider applications.

Data availability

All data analysed in this study are available from https://osf.io/ygrve/

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Steven Miletić

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    s.miletic@uva.nl
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7399-2926
  2. Russell J Boag

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Anne C Trutti

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Niek Stevenson

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Birte U Forstmann

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    Birte U Forstmann, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1005-1675
  6. Andrew Heathcote

    Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016.vici.185.052)

  • Birte U Forstmann

Australian Research Council (DP150100272)

  • Andrew Heathcote

Australian Research Council (DP160101891)

  • Andrew Heathcote

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent was obtained in all experiments prior to the experiment onset. The local ethics board of the University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology approved the study, with reference numbers 2018-BC-9620 (experiment 1), 2019-BC-10672 (experiment 2), 2019-BC-10250 (experiment 3), and 2020-BC-12788 (experiment 4).

Copyright

© 2021, Miletić 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

  • 3,436
    views
  • 419
    downloads
  • 33
    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)

  1. Steven Miletić
  2. Russell J Boag
  3. Anne C Trutti
  4. Niek Stevenson
  5. Birte U Forstmann
  6. Andrew Heathcote
(2021)
A new model of decision processing in instrumental learning tasks
eLife 10:e63055.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63055

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63055

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sharon Inberg, Yael Iosilevskii ... Benjamin Podbilewicz
    Research Article

    Dendrites are crucial for receiving information into neurons. Sensory experience affects the structure of these tree-like neurites, which, it is assumed, modifies neuronal function, yet the evidence is scarce, and the mechanisms are unknown. To study whether sensory experience affects dendritic morphology, we use the Caenorhabditis elegans' arborized nociceptor PVD neurons, under natural mechanical stimulation induced by physical contacts between individuals. We found that mechanosensory signals induced by conspecifics and by glass beads affect the dendritic structure of the PVD. Moreover, developmentally isolated animals show a decrease in their ability to respond to harsh touch. The structural and behavioral plasticity following sensory deprivation are functionally independent of each other and are mediated by an array of evolutionarily conserved mechanosensory amiloride-sensitive epithelial sodium channels (degenerins). Calcium imaging of the PVD neurons in a micromechanical device revealed that controlled mechanical stimulation of the body wall produces similar calcium dynamics in both isolated and crowded animals. Our genetic results, supported by optogenetic, behavioral, and pharmacological evidence, suggest an activity-dependent homeostatic mechanism for dendritic structural plasticity, that in parallel controls escape response to noxious mechanosensory stimuli.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mi-Seon Kong, Ethan Ancell ... Larry S Zweifel
    Research Article

    The central amygdala (CeA) has emerged as an important brain region for regulating both negative (fear and anxiety) and positive (reward) affective behaviors. The CeA has been proposed to encode affective information in the form of valence (whether the stimulus is good or bad) or salience (how significant is the stimulus), but the extent to which these two types of stimulus representation occur in the CeA is not known. Here, we used single cell calcium imaging in mice during appetitive and aversive conditioning and found that majority of CeA neurons (~65%) encode the valence of the unconditioned stimulus (US) with a smaller subset of cells (~15%) encoding the salience of the US. Valence and salience encoding of the conditioned stimulus (CS) was also observed, albeit to a lesser extent. These findings show that the CeA is a site of convergence for encoding oppositely valenced US information.