4.6 Article

Cardiac Cycle Affects the Asymmetric Value Updating in Instrumental Reward Learning

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.889440

Keywords

cardiac cycle; decision-making; interoception; reinforcement leaning; instrumental learning; baroreflex; reward learning

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the influence of the cardiac cycle on instrumental reward learning and finds that the fluctuations in cardiac afferent signals can affect asymmetric value updating in instrumental reward learning.
This study aimed to investigate whether instrumental reward learning is affected by the cardiac cycle. To this end, we examined the effects of the cardiac cycle (systole or diastole) on the computational processes underlying the participants' choices in the instrumental learning task. In the instrumental learning task, participants were required to select one of two discriminative stimuli (neutral visual stimuli) and immediately receive reward/punishment feedback depending on the probability assigned to the chosen stimuli. To manipulate the cardiac cycle, the presentation of discriminative stimuli was timed to coincide with either cardiac systole or diastole. We fitted the participants' choices in the task with reinforcement learning (RL) models and estimated parameters involving instrumental learning (i.e., learning rate and inverse temperature) separately in the systole and diastole trials. Model-based analysis revealed that the learning rate for positive prediction errors was higher than that for negative prediction errors in the systole trials; however, learning rates did not differ between positive and negative prediction errors in the diastole trials. These results demonstrate that the natural fluctuation of cardiac afferent signals can affect asymmetric value updating in instrumental reward learning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available