Expected reward value and reward prediction errors reinforce but also interfere with human time perception.
DiMarco, E. K.; Shipp, A. R.; Kishida, K. T.
Show abstract
Time perception is often investigated in animal models and in humans using instrumental paradigms where reinforcement learning (RL) and associated dopaminergic processes have modulatory effects. For example, interval timing, which includes the judgment of relatively short intervals of time (ranging from milliseconds to minutes), has been shown to be modulated by manipulations of striatal dopamine. The expected value of reward (EV) and reward prediction errors (RPEs) are key variables described in RL-theory that explain dopaminergic signals during reward processing during instrumental learning. Notably, the underlying connection between RL-processes and time perception in humans is relatively underexplored. Herein, we investigated the impact of EV and RPEs on interval timing in humans. We tested the hypotheses that EV and RPEs modulate the experience of short time intervals. We demonstrate that expectations of monetary gains or losses increases the initial performance error for 1000ms intervals. Temporal learning over repeated trials is observed with accelerated learning of non-reinforced 1000ms intervals; however, RPEs - specifically about rewards and not punishments - appear to reinforce performance errors, which effectively interferes with the rate at which (reinforced) 1000ms intervals were learned. These effects were not significant for 3000ms and 5000ms intervals. Our results demonstrate that EV and RPEs influence human behavior about 1000ms time intervals. We discuss our results considering model-free temporal difference RL-theory, which suggests the hypothesis that interval timing may be mediated by dopaminergic signals that reinforce the learning and prediction of dynamic state-transitions which could be encoded without an explicit reference to time intervals.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- High stakes slow responding, but do not help overcome Pavlovian biases in humans 95%
- Flexible decision-making is related to strategy learning, vicarious trial and error, and medial prefrontal rhythms during spatial set-shifting 95%
- Memory for Individual Items is Related to Non-Reinforced Preference Change 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.