4.7 Article

Neural Mechanisms of Credit Assignment in a Multicue Environment

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 1096-1112

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3159-15.2016

关键词

decision making; learning; medial prefrontal cortex; orbitofrontal cortex

资金

  1. Canon Foundation in Europe
  2. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  3. U.K. Medical Research Council
  4. Welcome Trust
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [14J09336] Funding Source: KAKEN
  6. MRC [G0902373, G0700399, G0802146, G0400593] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Economic and Social Research Council [1501067] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [G0400593, G0902373, G0802146, G0700399, 1022152] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Wellcome Trust [100973/Z/13/Z] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Wellcome Trust [100973/Z/13/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In complex environments, many potential cues can guide a decision or be assigned responsibility for the outcome of the decision. We know little, however, about how humans and animals select relevant information sources that should guide behavior. We show that subjects solve this relevance selection and credit assignment problem by selecting one cue and its association with a particular outcome as the main focus of a hypothesis. To do this, we examined learning while using a task design that allowed us to estimate the focus of each subject's hypotheses on a trial-by-trial basis. When a prediction is confirmed by the outcome, then credit for the outcome is assigned to that cue rather than an alternative. Activity in medial frontal cortex is associated with the assignment of credit to the cue that is the main focus of the hypothesis. However, when the outcome disconfirms a prediction, the focus shifts between cues, and the credit for the outcome is assigned to an alternative cue. This process of reselection for credit assignment to an alternative cue is associated with lateral orbitofrontal cortex.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据