认知控制和强化学习范式的共同整合时间窗口:相关研究

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Nicola Vasta, Shengjie Xu, Tom Verguts, Senne Braem
{"title":"认知控制和强化学习范式的共同整合时间窗口:相关研究","authors":"Nicola Vasta, Shengjie Xu, Tom Verguts, Senne Braem","doi":"10.3758/s13421-024-01626-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive control refers to the ability to override prepotent response tendencies to achieve goal-directed behavior. On the other hand, reinforcement learning refers to the learning of actions through feedback and reward. Although cognitive control and reinforcement learning are often viewed as opposing forces in driving behavior, recent theories have emphasized possible similarities in their underling processes. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether a similar time window of integration could be observed during the learning of control on the one hand, and the learning rate in reinforcement learning paradigms on the other. To this end, we performed a correlational analysis on a large public dataset (n = 522) including data from two reinforcement learning tasks, i.e., a probabilistic selection task and a probabilistic Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), and data from a classic conflict task (i.e., the Stroop task). Results showed expected correlations between the time scale of control indices and learning rate in the probabilistic WCST. Moreover, the learning-rate parameters of the two reinforcement learning tasks did not correlate with each other. Together, these findings suggest a reliance on a shared learning mechanism between these two traditionally distinct domains, while at the same time emphasizing that value updating processes can still be very task-specific. We speculate that updating processes in the Stroop and WCST may be more related because both tasks require task-specific updating of stimulus features (e.g., color, word meaning, pattern, shape), as opposed to stimulus identity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48398,"journal":{"name":"Memory & Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A shared temporal window of integration across cognitive control and reinforcement learning paradigms: A correlational study.\",\"authors\":\"Nicola Vasta, Shengjie Xu, Tom Verguts, Senne Braem\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13421-024-01626-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cognitive control refers to the ability to override prepotent response tendencies to achieve goal-directed behavior. On the other hand, reinforcement learning refers to the learning of actions through feedback and reward. Although cognitive control and reinforcement learning are often viewed as opposing forces in driving behavior, recent theories have emphasized possible similarities in their underling processes. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether a similar time window of integration could be observed during the learning of control on the one hand, and the learning rate in reinforcement learning paradigms on the other. To this end, we performed a correlational analysis on a large public dataset (n = 522) including data from two reinforcement learning tasks, i.e., a probabilistic selection task and a probabilistic Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), and data from a classic conflict task (i.e., the Stroop task). Results showed expected correlations between the time scale of control indices and learning rate in the probabilistic WCST. Moreover, the learning-rate parameters of the two reinforcement learning tasks did not correlate with each other. Together, these findings suggest a reliance on a shared learning mechanism between these two traditionally distinct domains, while at the same time emphasizing that value updating processes can still be very task-specific. We speculate that updating processes in the Stroop and WCST may be more related because both tasks require task-specific updating of stimulus features (e.g., color, word meaning, pattern, shape), as opposed to stimulus identity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory & Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory & Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01626-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01626-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知控制指的是推翻先入为主的反应倾向以实现目标导向行为的能力。另一方面,强化学习指的是通过反馈和奖励来学习行为。虽然认知控制和强化学习通常被视为驱动行为的对立力量,但最近的理论强调了它们的基本过程中可能存在的相似之处。本研究旨在探讨在控制学习和强化学习范式中的学习率之间是否存在相似的整合时间窗口。为此,我们对一个大型公共数据集(n = 522)进行了相关分析,其中包括两个强化学习任务(即概率选择任务和概率威斯康星卡片分类任务(WCST))的数据,以及一个经典冲突任务(即 Stroop 任务)的数据。结果表明,在概率威斯康星卡片分类任务中,控制指数的时间尺度与学习率之间存在预期的相关性。此外,两种强化学习任务的学习率参数并不相互关联。这些发现共同表明,在这两个传统上截然不同的领域之间存在着一种共同的学习机制,同时也强调了价值更新过程仍然可能具有很强的任务特异性。我们推测,Stroop 和 WCST 中的更新过程可能更加相关,因为这两个任务都需要针对特定任务更新刺激特征(如颜色、词义、图案、形状),而不是刺激特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A shared temporal window of integration across cognitive control and reinforcement learning paradigms: A correlational study.

A shared temporal window of integration across cognitive control and reinforcement learning paradigms: A correlational study.

Cognitive control refers to the ability to override prepotent response tendencies to achieve goal-directed behavior. On the other hand, reinforcement learning refers to the learning of actions through feedback and reward. Although cognitive control and reinforcement learning are often viewed as opposing forces in driving behavior, recent theories have emphasized possible similarities in their underling processes. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether a similar time window of integration could be observed during the learning of control on the one hand, and the learning rate in reinforcement learning paradigms on the other. To this end, we performed a correlational analysis on a large public dataset (n = 522) including data from two reinforcement learning tasks, i.e., a probabilistic selection task and a probabilistic Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), and data from a classic conflict task (i.e., the Stroop task). Results showed expected correlations between the time scale of control indices and learning rate in the probabilistic WCST. Moreover, the learning-rate parameters of the two reinforcement learning tasks did not correlate with each other. Together, these findings suggest a reliance on a shared learning mechanism between these two traditionally distinct domains, while at the same time emphasizing that value updating processes can still be very task-specific. We speculate that updating processes in the Stroop and WCST may be more related because both tasks require task-specific updating of stimulus features (e.g., color, word meaning, pattern, shape), as opposed to stimulus identity.

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
Memory & Cognition
Memory & Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Memory & Cognition covers human memory and learning, conceptual processes, psycholinguistics, problem solving, thinking, decision making, and skilled performance, including relevant work in the areas of computer simulation, information processing, mathematical psychology, developmental psychology, and experimental social psychology.
×
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