一系列不幸事件:灾难化的人在经历负面结果后会学到更多东西吗?

Mia Harada-Laszlo, Anahita Talwar, Oliver J. Robinson, Alexandra C. Pike
{"title":"一系列不幸事件:灾难化的人在经历负面结果后会学到更多东西吗?","authors":"Mia Harada-Laszlo,&nbsp;Anahita Talwar,&nbsp;Oliver J. Robinson,&nbsp;Alexandra C. Pike","doi":"10.1002/mhs2.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Catastrophizing is a transdiagnostic construct that has been suggested to precipitate and maintain a multiplicity of psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, the underlying cognitive mechanisms that result in catastrophizing are unknown. Relating reinforcement learning model parameters to catastrophizing may allow us to further understand the process of catastrophizing. Using a modified four-armed bandit task, we aimed to investigate the relationship between reinforcement learning parameters and self-report catastrophizing questionnaire scores to gain a mechanistic understanding of how catastrophizing may alter learning. We recruited 211 participants to complete a computerized four-armed bandit task and tested the fit of six reinforcement learning models on our data, including two novel models which both incorporated a scaling factor related to a <i>history of negative outcomes</i> variable. We investigated the relationship between self-report catastrophizing scores and free parameters from the overall best-fitting model, along with the best-fitting model to include <i>history</i>, using Pearson's correlations. Subsequently, we reassessed these relationships using multiple regression analyses to evaluate whether any observed relationships were altered when relevant IQ and mental health covariates were applied. Model-agnostic analyses indicated there were effects of outcome history on reaction time and accuracy, and that the effects on accuracy related to catastrophizing. The overall model of best fit was the Standard Rescorla–Wagner Model and the best-fitting model to include <i>history</i> was a model in which learning rate was scaled by history of negative outcome. We found no effect of catastrophizing on the scaling by history of negative outcome parameter (<i>r</i> = 0.003, <i>p</i> = 0.679), the learning rate parameter (<i>r</i> = 0.026, <i>p</i> = 0.703), or the inverse temperature parameter (<i>r</i> = 0.086, <i>p</i> = 0.220). We were unable to relate catastrophizing to any of the reinforcement learning parameters we investigated. This implies that catastrophizing is not straightforwardly linked to any changes to learning after a series of negative outcomes are received. Future research could incorporate further exploration of the space of models which include a <i>history</i> parameter.</p>","PeriodicalId":94140,"journal":{"name":"Mental health science","volume":"2 1","pages":"73-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mhs2.49","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A series of unfortunate events: Do those who catastrophize learn more after negative outcomes?\",\"authors\":\"Mia Harada-Laszlo,&nbsp;Anahita Talwar,&nbsp;Oliver J. Robinson,&nbsp;Alexandra C. Pike\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mhs2.49\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Catastrophizing is a transdiagnostic construct that has been suggested to precipitate and maintain a multiplicity of psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, the underlying cognitive mechanisms that result in catastrophizing are unknown. Relating reinforcement learning model parameters to catastrophizing may allow us to further understand the process of catastrophizing. Using a modified four-armed bandit task, we aimed to investigate the relationship between reinforcement learning parameters and self-report catastrophizing questionnaire scores to gain a mechanistic understanding of how catastrophizing may alter learning. We recruited 211 participants to complete a computerized four-armed bandit task and tested the fit of six reinforcement learning models on our data, including two novel models which both incorporated a scaling factor related to a <i>history of negative outcomes</i> variable. We investigated the relationship between self-report catastrophizing scores and free parameters from the overall best-fitting model, along with the best-fitting model to include <i>history</i>, using Pearson's correlations. Subsequently, we reassessed these relationships using multiple regression analyses to evaluate whether any observed relationships were altered when relevant IQ and mental health covariates were applied. Model-agnostic analyses indicated there were effects of outcome history on reaction time and accuracy, and that the effects on accuracy related to catastrophizing. The overall model of best fit was the Standard Rescorla–Wagner Model and the best-fitting model to include <i>history</i> was a model in which learning rate was scaled by history of negative outcome. We found no effect of catastrophizing on the scaling by history of negative outcome parameter (<i>r</i> = 0.003, <i>p</i> = 0.679), the learning rate parameter (<i>r</i> = 0.026, <i>p</i> = 0.703), or the inverse temperature parameter (<i>r</i> = 0.086, <i>p</i> = 0.220). We were unable to relate catastrophizing to any of the reinforcement learning parameters we investigated. This implies that catastrophizing is not straightforwardly linked to any changes to learning after a series of negative outcomes are received. Future research could incorporate further exploration of the space of models which include a <i>history</i> parameter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental health science\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"73-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mhs2.49\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental health science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhs2.49\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental health science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhs2.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

灾难化是一种跨诊断结构,被认为会诱发和维持多种精神疾病,包括焦虑症、抑郁症、创伤后应激障碍和强迫症。然而,导致灾难化的潜在认知机制尚不清楚。将强化学习模型参数与灾难化联系起来,可以让我们进一步了解灾难化的过程。我们使用改进的四臂匪徒任务,旨在研究强化学习参数与自我报告的灾难化问卷得分之间的关系,从而从机制上理解灾难化是如何改变学习的。我们招募了 211 名参与者来完成计算机化的四臂强盗任务,并在数据上测试了六个强化学习模型的拟合度,其中包括两个新模型,这两个模型都包含了一个与负面结果史变量相关的缩放因子。我们利用皮尔逊相关性研究了自我报告灾难化得分与整体最佳拟合模型自由参数之间的关系,以及包含历史的最佳拟合模型。随后,我们使用多元回归分析重新评估了这些关系,以评估在应用相关智商和心理健康协变量时,观察到的关系是否会发生改变。模型区分分析表明,结果历史对反应时间和准确性有影响,而对准确性的影响与灾难化有关。最适合的整体模型是标准雷斯科拉-瓦格纳模型,而包含历史记录的最适合模型是学习率与负结果历史记录成比例的模型。我们发现灾难化对负性结果历史参数缩放(r = 0.003,p = 0.679)、学习率参数(r = 0.026,p = 0.703)或逆温度参数(r = 0.086,p = 0.220)没有影响。我们无法将灾难化与我们研究的任何强化学习参数联系起来。这意味着灾难化与一系列负面结果产生后的学习变化没有直接联系。未来的研究可以进一步探索包含历史参数的模型空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A series of unfortunate events: Do those who catastrophize learn more after negative outcomes?

A series of unfortunate events: Do those who catastrophize learn more after negative outcomes?

Catastrophizing is a transdiagnostic construct that has been suggested to precipitate and maintain a multiplicity of psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, the underlying cognitive mechanisms that result in catastrophizing are unknown. Relating reinforcement learning model parameters to catastrophizing may allow us to further understand the process of catastrophizing. Using a modified four-armed bandit task, we aimed to investigate the relationship between reinforcement learning parameters and self-report catastrophizing questionnaire scores to gain a mechanistic understanding of how catastrophizing may alter learning. We recruited 211 participants to complete a computerized four-armed bandit task and tested the fit of six reinforcement learning models on our data, including two novel models which both incorporated a scaling factor related to a history of negative outcomes variable. We investigated the relationship between self-report catastrophizing scores and free parameters from the overall best-fitting model, along with the best-fitting model to include history, using Pearson's correlations. Subsequently, we reassessed these relationships using multiple regression analyses to evaluate whether any observed relationships were altered when relevant IQ and mental health covariates were applied. Model-agnostic analyses indicated there were effects of outcome history on reaction time and accuracy, and that the effects on accuracy related to catastrophizing. The overall model of best fit was the Standard Rescorla–Wagner Model and the best-fitting model to include history was a model in which learning rate was scaled by history of negative outcome. We found no effect of catastrophizing on the scaling by history of negative outcome parameter (r = 0.003, p = 0.679), the learning rate parameter (r = 0.026, p = 0.703), or the inverse temperature parameter (r = 0.086, p = 0.220). We were unable to relate catastrophizing to any of the reinforcement learning parameters we investigated. This implies that catastrophizing is not straightforwardly linked to any changes to learning after a series of negative outcomes are received. Future research could incorporate further exploration of the space of models which include a history parameter.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信