Back

Two time scales of adaptation in human learning rates

Simoens, J.; Braem, S.; Verbeke, P.; Chen, H.; Mattioni, S.; Chai, M.; Schuck, N. W.; Verguts, T.

2025-06-06 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.06.05.658048 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Different situations may require radically different information updating speeds (i.e., learning rates). Some demand fast learning rates, while others benefit from using slower ones. To adjust learning rates, people could rely on either global, meta-learned differences between environments, or faster but transient adaptations to locally experienced prediction errors. Here, we introduce a new paradigm that allows researchers to measure and empirically disentangle both forms of adaptations. Participants performed short blocks of trials of a continuous estimation task - fishing for crabs - on six different islands that required different optimal (initial) learning rates. Across two experiments, participants showed fast adaptations in learning rate within a block. Critically, participants also learned global environment-specific learning rates over the time course of the experiment, as evidenced by computational modelling and by the learning rates calculated on the very first trial when revisiting an environment (i.e., unconfounded by transient adaptations). Using representational similarity analyses of fMRI data, we found that differences in voxel pattern responses in the central orbitofrontal cortex correlated with differences in these global environment-specific learning rates. Our findings show that humans adapt learning rates at both slow and fast time scales, and that the central orbitofrontal cortex may support meta-learning by representing environment-specific task-relevant features such as learning rates.

Published in eLife (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.