Tracking subjects' strategies in behavioural choice experiments at trial resolution

  1. Silvia Maggi
  2. Rebecca M Hock
  3. Martin O'Neill
  4. Mark Buckley
  5. Paula M Moran
  6. Tobias Bast
  7. Musa Sami
  8. Mark D Humphries  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
  2. Atlantic Technological University, Ireland
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

Investigating how, when, and what subjects learn during decision-making tasks requires tracking their choice strategies on a trial-by-trial basis. Here we present a simple but effective probabilistic approach to tracking choice strategies at trial resolution using Bayesian evidence accumulation. We show this approach identifies both successful learning and the exploratory strategies used in decision tasks performed by humans, non-human primates, rats, and synthetic agents. Both when subjects learn and when rules change the exploratory strategies of win-stay and lose-shift, often considered complementary, are consistently used independently. Indeed, we find the use of lose-shift is strong evidence that subjects have latently learnt the salient features of a new rewarded rule. Our approach can be extended to any discrete choice strategy, and its low computational cost is ideally suited for real-time analysis and closed-loop control.

Data availability

Source data from the rat Y-maze task data are available from crcns.org at http://dx.doi.org/10.6080/K0KH0KH5. Source data from the rat lever-press task (32 rats), the human gain/loss task (20 participants) and the primate stimulus-to-action task (one session) are available from the Nottingham Research Data Management Service at http://doi.org/10.17639/nott.7274.Processed data and analysis code to replicate all figures are available in our GitHub repository https://github.com/Humphries-Lab/Bayesian_strategy_analysis_Paper. Our copies of the source data for the Y-maze task, lever-press task, gain/loss task, and stimulus-to-action task are also freely available from the same repository.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Silvia Maggi

    School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6533-3509
  2. Rebecca M Hock

    School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0917-570X
  3. Martin O'Neill

    Deparyment of Health and Nutritional Sciences, Atlantic Technological University, Sligo, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mark Buckley

    Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7455-8486
  5. Paula M Moran

    School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Tobias Bast

    School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6163-3229
  7. Musa Sami

    Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mark D Humphries

    School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    mark.humphries@nottingham.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1906-2581

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/J008648/1)

  • Mark D Humphries

Medical Research Council (MR/P005659/1)

  • Mark D Humphries

Medical Research Council (MR/S025944/1)

  • Mark D Humphries

Medical Research Council (MR/K005480/1)

  • Mark Buckley

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/T00598X/1)

  • Mark Buckley
  • Mark D Humphries

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M008770/1)

  • Rebecca M Hock
  • Paula M Moran
  • Tobias Bast

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Rat - lever-press task: All experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the United Kingdom (UK) Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, approved by the University of Nottingham's Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and run under the authority of Home Office project license 30/3357.Non-human primate task: All animal training and experimental procedures were performed in accordance with the guidelines of the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986, licensed by the UK Home Office, and approved by Oxford University's Committee on Animal Care and Ethical Review.

Human subjects: The human gain/loss task study was approved by Research Ethics Committee (Stanmore London REC 17/LO/0577). All participants were read a participation information leaflet and undertook informed consent.

Copyright

© 2024, Maggi 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

  • 1,782
    views
  • 257
    downloads
  • 3
    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. Silvia Maggi
  2. Rebecca M Hock
  3. Martin O'Neill
  4. Mark Buckley
  5. Paula M Moran
  6. Tobias Bast
  7. Musa Sami
  8. Mark D Humphries
(2024)
Tracking subjects' strategies in behavioural choice experiments at trial resolution
eLife 13:e86491.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86491

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86491

Further reading

    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.

    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.