Dynamic belief representation and updating through learned attractor-like dynamics in the frontal cortex
Romero Pinto, S. A.; Hennig, J. A.; Burrell, M.; Okada, D.; Benquet, C.; Regester, D.; Isogai, Y.; Linderman, S. W.; Gershman, S. J.; Uchida, N.
Show abstract
To act adaptively, animals must infer hidden states of the world from incomplete sensory information and update beliefs as new observations accrue. While dopamine signals are well explained by reinforcement learning models that incorporate belief states, how the brain implements belief-state inference remains unknown. Prior modeling work showed that recurrent neural networks trained to predict value (Value-RNN) develop task-specific, attractor-like dynamics that mirror evolution of beliefs. Here we performed high-density electrophysiological recordings from orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and other brain areas of mice performing two variants of a Pavlovian task that differ in reward probability, which produce different within-trial belief dynamics. We find that OFC population activity exhibits task-specific attractor-like dynamics that mirror the within-trial dynamics in the Value-RNN. These dynamics are absent in motor and olfactory regions, are not explained by behavioral differences, and emerge progressively with learning. Our findings indicate that the brain approximates belief-state inference through learned, task-specific attractor-like dynamics.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A global dopaminergic learning rate enables adaptive foraging across many options 96%
- Inhibitory and excitatory populations in parietal cortex are equally selective for decision outcome in both novices and experts 96%
- Representational similarity modulates neural and behavioral signatures of novelty 96%
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.