Back

Differentiating Bayesian model updating and model revision based on their prediction error dynamics

Rutar, D.; Colizoli, O.; Selen, L.; Spiess, L.; Kwisthout, J.; Hunnius, S.

2022-06-17 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.06.15.496278 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Within predictive processing learning is construed as Bayesian model updating with the degree of certainty for different existing hypotheses changing in light of new evidence. Bayesian model updating, however, cannot explain how new hypotheses are added to a model. Model revision, unlike model updating, makes structural changes to a generative model by altering its causal connections or adding or removing hypotheses. Whilst model updating and model revision have recently been formally differentiated, they have not been empirically distinguished. The aim of this research was to empirically differentiate between model updating and revision on the basis of how they affect prediction errors and predictions over time. To study this, participants took part in a within-subject computer-based learning experiment with two phases: updating and revision. In the updating phase, participants had to predict the relationship between cues and target stimuli and in the revision phase, they had to correctly predict a change in the said relationship. Based on previous research, phasic pupil dilation was taken as a proxy for prediction error. During model updating, we expected that the prediction errors over trials would be gradually decreasing as a reflection of the continuous integration of new evidence. During model revision, in contrast, prediction errors over trials were expected to show an abrupt decrease following the successful integration of a new hypothesis within the existing model. The opposite results were expected for predictions. Our results show that the learning dynamics as reflected in pupil and accuracy data are indeed qualitatively different between the revision and the updating phase, however in the opposite direction as expected. Participants were learning more gradually in the revision phase compared to the updating phase. This could imply that participants first built multiple models from scratch in the updating phase and updated them in the revision phase.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.9%
2
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
3
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
4
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.9%
6
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.2%
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 23%
5.2%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.9%
9
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
10
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.6%
11
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
12
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
13
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
14
Psychophysiology
77 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.3%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.3%
16
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
17
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
18
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
19
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.6%
20
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.6%
21
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.6%
22
Consciousness and Cognition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
27
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
28
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
29
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.6%