scholarly journals Pupil Dilation and Response Slowing Distinguish Deliberate Explorative Choices in the Probabilistic Learning Task

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galina Kozunova ◽  
Ksenia Sayfulina ◽  
Andrey Prokofyev ◽  
Vladimir Medvedev ◽  
Anna Rytikova ◽  
...  

This study examined whether pupil size and response time would distinguish directed exploration from random exploration and exploitation. Eighty-nine participants performed the two-choice probabilistic learning task while their pupil size and response time were continuously recorded. Using LMM analysis, we estimated differences in the pupil size and response time between the advantageous and disadvantageous choices as a function of learning success, i.e., whether or not a participant has learned the probabilistic contingency between choices and their outcomes. We proposed that before a true value of each choice became known to a decision-maker, both advantageous and disadvantageous choices represented a random exploration of the two options with an equally uncertain outcome, whereas the same choices after learning manifested exploitation and direct exploration strategies, respectively. We found that disadvantageous choices were associated with increases both in response time and pupil size, but only after the participants had learned the choice-reward contingencies. For the pupil size, this effect was strongly amplified for those disadvantageous choices that immediately followed gains as compared to losses in the preceding choice. Pupil size modulations were evident during the behavioral choice rather than during the pretrial baseline. These findings suggest that occasional disadvantageous choices, which violate the acquired internal utility model, represent directed exploration. This exploratory strategy shifts choice priorities in favor of information seeking and its autonomic and behavioral concomitants are mainly driven by the conflict between the behavioral plan of the intended exploratory choice and its strong alternative, which has already proven to be more rewarding.

2020 ◽  
pp. 108705472090509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjolein Luman ◽  
Tieme W. P. Janssen ◽  
Marleen Bink ◽  
Rosa van Mourik ◽  
Athanasios Maras ◽  
...  

Objective: The current study examined instrumental learning in ADHD. Method: A total of 58 children with ADHD and 58 typically developing (TD) children performed a probabilistic learning task using three reward probability conditions (100%, 85%, 70% reward). After a learning phase, application of what was learned was assessed in a test phase. Results: Results showed that children with ADHD performed less accurate compared with TD children during the learning phase, particularly in the 100% and 85% reward probability conditions. These findings were accompanied by a blunted learning rate in the first few task trials. Furthermore, children with ADHD showed poorer application of what was learned. Conclusion: To conclude, children with ADHD show initial learning problems, but increased performance in a similar manner as TD children independent of the probability of reward, although they fail to apply their knowledge. Findings are of clinical relevance as the application of knowledge is important to successfully adapt to daily challenges in life.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. s64-s65
Author(s):  
M. Browning ◽  
S. Rudebeck ◽  
S.E. Murphy ◽  
P.J. Cowen ◽  
C.J. Harmer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Algermissen ◽  
Jennifer C. Swart ◽  
René Scheeringa ◽  
Roshan Cools ◽  
Hanneke E.M. den Ouden

AbstractAction selection is biased by the valence of anticipated outcomes. To assess mechanisms by which these motivational biases are expressed and controlled, we measured simultaneous EEG-fMRI during a motivational Go/NoGo learning task (N=36), leveraging the temporal resolution of EEG and subcortical access of fMRI. VmPFC BOLD encoded cue valence, importantly predicting trial-by-trial valence-driven response speed differences and EEG theta power around cue onset. In contrast, striatal BOLD encoded selection of active Go responses and correlated with theta power around response time. Within trials, theta power ramped in the fashion of an evidence accumulation signal for the value of making a ‘Go’ response, capturing the faster responding to reward cues. Our findings reveal a dual nature of midfrontal theta power, with early components reflecting the vmPFC contribution to motivational biases, and late components reflecting their striatal translation into behavior, in line with influential recent “value of work” theories of striatal processing.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve M. J. Janssen ◽  
Alicia Foo ◽  
Sheena Johnson ◽  
Alfred Lim ◽  
Jason Satel

To examine the relationship between visual imagery and autobiographical memory, eye position and pupil size were recorded while participants first searched for memories and then reconstructed the retrieved memories (Experiment 1), or only searched for memories (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we observed that, although recollective experience was not associated with the number of fixations per minute, memories that took longer to retrieve were linked to increased pupil size. In Experiment 2, we observed that directly retrieved memories were recalled more quickly and were accompanied by smaller pupils than generatively retrieved memories. After correcting for response time, retrieval mode also produced an effect, showing that decreased pupil size is not simply due to directly retrieved memories being recalled more quickly. These findings provide compelling evidence that objective measures, such as pupil size, can be used alongside subjective measures, such as self-reports, to distinguish between directly retrieved and generatively retrieved memories.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e0119456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Button ◽  
Daphne Kounali ◽  
Lexine Stapinski ◽  
Ronald M. Rapee ◽  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 104787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Wetzel ◽  
Wolfgang Einhäuser ◽  
Andreas Widmann
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 127 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuzana Kasanova ◽  
James A. Waltz ◽  
Gregory P. Strauss ◽  
Michael J. Frank ◽  
James M. Gold

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document