Back

The shadowing effect of initial expectation on learning asymmetry

Sun, J.; Ni, Y.; Li, J.

2022-11-22 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.11.22.517473 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Evidence for positivity and optimism bias abounds in high-level belief updates. However, no consensus has been reached regarding whether learning asymmetries exists in more elementary forms of updates such as reinforcement learning (RL). In RL, the learning asymmetry concerns the sensitivity difference in incorporating positive and negative prediction errors (PE) into value estimation, namely the asymmetry of learning rates associated with positive and negative PEs. Although RL has been established as a canonical framework in interpreting agent and environment interactions, the direction of the learning rate asymmetry remains controversial. Here, we propose that part of the controversy stems from the fact that people may have different value expectations before entering the learning environment. Such default value expectation influences how PEs are calculated and consequently biases subjects choices. We test this hypothesis in two learning experiments with stable or varying reinforcement probabilities, across monetary gains, losses and gain-loss mixtures environments. Our results consistently support the model incorporating asymmetric learning rates and initial value expectation, highlighting the role of initial expectation in value update and choice preference. Further simulation and model parameter recovery analyses confirm the unique contribution of initial value expectation in accessing learning rate asymmetry. Author SummaryWhile RL model has long been applied in modeling learning behavior, where value update stands in the core of the learning process, it remains controversial whether and how learning is biased when updating from positive and negative PEs. Here, through model comparison, simulation and recovery analyses, we show that accurate identification of learning asymmetry is contingent on taking into account of subjects default value expectation in both monetary gain and loss environments. Our results stress the importance of initial expectation specification, especially in studies investigating learning asymmetry.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
33.3%
2
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Computational Psychiatry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.9%
7
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.8%
9
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
10
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 32%
1.7%
12
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
14
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
15
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
16
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
19
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.5%
23
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
24
Psychological Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%