人类在不同的学习环境中会适应性地选择不同的计算策略。

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Pieter Verbeke, Tom Verguts
{"title":"人类在不同的学习环境中会适应性地选择不同的计算策略。","authors":"Pieter Verbeke, Tom Verguts","doi":"10.1037/rev0000474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Rescorla-Wagner rule remains the most popular tool to describe human behavior in reinforcement learning tasks. Nevertheless, it cannot fit human learning in complex environments. Previous work proposed several hierarchical extensions of this learning rule. However, it remains unclear when a flat (nonhierarchical) versus a hierarchical strategy is adaptive, or when it is implemented by humans. To address this question, current work applies a nested modeling approach to evaluate multiple models in multiple reinforcement learning environments both computationally (which approach performs best) and empirically (which approach fits human data best). We consider 10 empirical data sets (<i>N</i> = 407) divided over three reinforcement learning environments. Our results demonstrate that different environments are best solved with different learning strategies; and that humans adaptively select the learning strategy that allows best performance. Specifically, while flat learning fitted best in less complex stable learning environments, humans employed more hierarchically complex models in more complex environments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Humans adaptively select different computational strategies in different learning environments.\",\"authors\":\"Pieter Verbeke, Tom Verguts\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/rev0000474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Rescorla-Wagner rule remains the most popular tool to describe human behavior in reinforcement learning tasks. Nevertheless, it cannot fit human learning in complex environments. Previous work proposed several hierarchical extensions of this learning rule. However, it remains unclear when a flat (nonhierarchical) versus a hierarchical strategy is adaptive, or when it is implemented by humans. To address this question, current work applies a nested modeling approach to evaluate multiple models in multiple reinforcement learning environments both computationally (which approach performs best) and empirically (which approach fits human data best). We consider 10 empirical data sets (<i>N</i> = 407) divided over three reinforcement learning environments. Our results demonstrate that different environments are best solved with different learning strategies; and that humans adaptively select the learning strategy that allows best performance. Specifically, while flat learning fitted best in less complex stable learning environments, humans employed more hierarchically complex models in more complex environments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000474\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000474","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

雷斯科拉-瓦格纳法则仍然是描述强化学习任务中人类行为的最常用工具。然而,它并不适合人类在复杂环境中的学习。之前的研究提出了该学习规则的几种分层扩展。然而,目前仍不清楚扁平(非分层)策略与分层策略何时具有适应性,或何时由人类实施。为了解决这个问题,目前的工作采用了嵌套建模方法,对多种强化学习环境中的多种模型进行计算评估(哪种方法表现最佳)和经验评估(哪种方法最适合人类数据)。我们考虑了三个强化学习环境中的 10 个经验数据集(N = 407)。我们的结果表明,在不同的环境中,最好采用不同的学习策略;而且人类会适应性地选择性能最佳的学习策略。具体来说,在不太复杂的稳定学习环境中,平面学习最合适,而在更复杂的环境中,人类则采用了层次更复杂的模型。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Humans adaptively select different computational strategies in different learning environments.

The Rescorla-Wagner rule remains the most popular tool to describe human behavior in reinforcement learning tasks. Nevertheless, it cannot fit human learning in complex environments. Previous work proposed several hierarchical extensions of this learning rule. However, it remains unclear when a flat (nonhierarchical) versus a hierarchical strategy is adaptive, or when it is implemented by humans. To address this question, current work applies a nested modeling approach to evaluate multiple models in multiple reinforcement learning environments both computationally (which approach performs best) and empirically (which approach fits human data best). We consider 10 empirical data sets (N = 407) divided over three reinforcement learning environments. Our results demonstrate that different environments are best solved with different learning strategies; and that humans adaptively select the learning strategy that allows best performance. Specifically, while flat learning fitted best in less complex stable learning environments, humans employed more hierarchically complex models in more complex environments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
×
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