Results 1 -
7 of
7
P VLV: the primary value and learned value Pavlovian learning algorithm
- Behav. Neurosci
, 2007
"... The authors present their primary value learned value (PVLV) model for understanding the rewardpredictive firing properties of dopamine (DA) neurons as an alternative to the temporal-differences (TD) algorithm. PVLV is more directly related to underlying biology and is also more robust to variabilit ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 10 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The authors present their primary value learned value (PVLV) model for understanding the rewardpredictive firing properties of dopamine (DA) neurons as an alternative to the temporal-differences (TD) algorithm. PVLV is more directly related to underlying biology and is also more robust to variability in the environment. The primary value (PV) system controls performance and learning during primary rewards, whereas the learned value (LV) system learns about conditioned stimuli. The PV system is essentially the Rescorla–Wagner/delta-rule and comprises the neurons in the ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens that inhibit DA cells. The LV system comprises the neurons in the central nucleus of the amygdala that excite DA cells. The authors show that the PVLV model can account for critical aspects of the DA firing data, making a number of clear predictions about lesion effects, several of which are consistent with existing data. For example, first- and second-order conditioning can be anatomically dissociated, which is consistent with PVLV and not TD. Overall, the model provides a biologically plausible framework for understanding the neural basis of reward learning.
Reinforcement learning in the brain
"... Abstract: A wealth of research focuses on the decision-making processes that animals and humans employ when selecting actions in the face of reward and punishment. Initially such work stemmed from psychological investigations of conditioned behavior, and explanations of these in terms of computation ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 8 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract: A wealth of research focuses on the decision-making processes that animals and humans employ when selecting actions in the face of reward and punishment. Initially such work stemmed from psychological investigations of conditioned behavior, and explanations of these in terms of computational models. Increasingly, analysis at the computational level has drawn on ideas from reinforcement learning, which provide a normative framework within which decision-making can be analyzed. More recently, the fruits of these extensive lines of research have made contact with investigations into the neural basis of decision making. Converging evidence now links reinforcement learning to specific neural substrates, assigning them precise computational roles. Specifically, electrophysiological recordings in behaving animals and functional imaging of human decision-making have revealed in the brain the existence of a key reinforcement learning signal, the temporal difference reward prediction error. Here, we first introduce the formal reinforcement learning framework. We then review the multiple lines of evidence linking reinforcement learning to the function of dopaminergic neurons in the mammalian midbrain and
Stimulus Representation and the Timing of Reward-Prediction Errors in Models of the Dopamine System
, 2008
"... The phasic firing of dopamine neurons has been theorized to encode a reward-prediction error as formalized by the temporal-difference (TD) algorithm in reinforcement learning. Most TD models of dopamine have assumed a stimulus representation, known as the complete serial compound, in which each mome ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The phasic firing of dopamine neurons has been theorized to encode a reward-prediction error as formalized by the temporal-difference (TD) algorithm in reinforcement learning. Most TD models of dopamine have assumed a stimulus representation, known as the complete serial compound, in which each moment in a trial is distinctly represented. We introduce a more realistic temporal stimulus representation for the TD model. In our model, all external stimuli, including rewards, spawn a series of internal microstimuli, which grow weaker and more diffuse over time. These microstimuli are used by the TD learning algorithm to generate predictions of future reward. This new stimulus representation injects temporal generalization into the TD model and enhances correspondence between model and data in several experiments, including those when rewards are omitted or received early. This improved fit mostly derives from the absence of large negative errors in the new model, suggesting that dopamine alone can encode the full range of TD errors in these situations.
Reinforcement Learning in a Nutshell
"... Abstract. We provide a concise introduction to basic approaches to reinforcement learning from the machine learning perspective. The focus is on value function and policy gradient methods. Some selected recent trends are highlighted. 1 ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 2 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We provide a concise introduction to basic approaches to reinforcement learning from the machine learning perspective. The focus is on value function and policy gradient methods. Some selected recent trends are highlighted. 1
Embodied Inference: or “I think therefore I am, if I am what I think”
"... This chapter considers situated and embodied cognition in terms of the free-energy principle. The free-energy formulation starts with the premise that biological agents must actively resist a natural tendency to disorder. It appeals to the idea that agents are essentially inference machines that ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This chapter considers situated and embodied cognition in terms of the free-energy principle. The free-energy formulation starts with the premise that biological agents must actively resist a natural tendency to disorder. It appeals to the idea that agents are essentially inference machines that
THE COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE OF MOTIVATION AND LEARNING
"... Recent advances in the cognitive neuroscience of motivation and learning have demonstrated a critical role for midbrain dopamine and its targets in reward prediction. Converging evidence suggests that midbrain dopamine neurons signal a reward prediction error, allowing an organism to predict, and to ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Recent advances in the cognitive neuroscience of motivation and learning have demonstrated a critical role for midbrain dopamine and its targets in reward prediction. Converging evidence suggests that midbrain dopamine neurons signal a reward prediction error, allowing an organism to predict, and to act to increase, the probability of reward in the future. This view has been highly successful in accounting for a wide range of reinforcement learning phenomena in animals and humans. However, while current theories of midbrain dopamine provide a good account of behavior known as habitual or stimulus-response learning, we review evidence suggesting that other neural and cognitive processes are involved in motivated, goal-directed behavior. We discuss how this distinction resembles the classic distinction in the cognitive neuroscience of memory between nondeclarative and declarative memory systems, and discuss common themes between mnemonic and motivational functions. Finally, we present data demonstrating links between mnemonic processes and reinforcement learning. The past decade has seen a growth of interest in the cognitive neuroscience of motivation and reward. This is largely rooted in a series of neurophysiology studies of the response properties of dopamine-containing midbrain neurons in primates receiving reward (Schultz, 1998). The responses of these neurons were subsequently interpreted in terms of reinforcement learning, a computational framework for trial and error learning from reward (Houk, Adams, & Barto, 1995; Montague, Dayan, & Sejnowski, 1996; Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997). Together with Both authors contributed equally to this article. We are most grateful to Shanti Shanker for assistance with data collection, to Anthony Wagner for generously allowing us to conduct the experiment reported here in his laboratory, and to Alison Adcock, Lila Davachi, Peter Dayan, Mark

