bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Schad, D. J.

Publications and source records attributed to Schad, D. J..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Beyond model-free Pavlovian responding: a two-stage Pavlovian-instrumental transfer paradigm

BackgroundPavlovian responding is a core component of behavior and can be measured via Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT), where Pavlovian responses bias instrumental actions. Standard single-lever PIT paradigms, which assess responses using a single-choice option, cannot dissociate the contribution of model-free versus model-based reinforcement learning. While indirect evidence suggests a role for model-free responding in single-lever PIT, the contribution of model-based strategies is unclear. It also remains unknown whether internal cognitive states, such as mind wandering, impair specifically model-based but not model-free PIT, as is theoretically expected. MethodsWe developed a novel, trial-by-trial two-stage PIT paradigm designed to computationally dissociate model-free and model-based Pavlovian responding by leveraging probabilistic state transitions and trial-wise outcome predictions. After each two-stage Pavlovian learning trial, participants performed a single-lever PIT trial as well as a query trial of explicit value judgment. Detailed task instructions were provided to support potential model-based strategies. Computational modeling was used to quantify individual learning strategies. We assessed mind-wandering questionnaires and thought probes. ResultsAnalysis of query and PIT trials revealed trial-by-trial updating of outcome expectations based on probabilistic task structure, consistent with model-based Pavlovian responding. Behavioral responses during PIT were best explained by a computational model-based reinforcement learning model. In contrast, we found little evidence for model-free Pavlovian responding. Higher levels of mind wandering were associated with reduced model-based control but did not impact model-free indices. ConclusionWe introduce a novel single-lever PIT paradigm that enables fine-grained dissociation of model-free versus model-based Pavlovian response systems. Our findings provide evidence that single-lever PIT can operate through model-based mechanisms, challenging the assumption that single-lever PIT is predominantly model-free. Our findings also indicate that internal attentional states selectively modulate model-based PIT. Given the involvement of Pavlovian responding in numerous psychiatric conditions, our paradigm offers new avenues for understanding maladaptive behavior. Author SummaryOur daily actions are often influenced by cues like the smell of food or the sound of phone notifications that signal potential rewards or losses. These Pavlovian cues can shape our instrumental behavior even though their outcomes do not depend on what we do - a process known as Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT). Here we study the computational learning mechanisms that underlie such PIT effects. While it is often assumed that Pavlovian responding follows simple, automatic rules without a cognitive model of cue consequences (i.e., model-free), evidence also shows a role for cognitive anticipations in Pavlovian responding (i.e., model-based). In this study, we extend this evidence by showing that PIT responding can be driven by flexible model-based learning. We designed a task to test whether participants use model-free versus model-based strategies to guide PIT, providing detailed task instructions. Using reinforcement learning models, we found that most participants used model-based learning when forming cue-outcome associations. Importantly, peoples attention mattered: when they were more distracted and doing mind wandering, they relied less on model-based strategies. Our findings suggest that Pavlovian learning is complex, flexible, and influenced by internal mental states, opening new windows to understand decision-making problems in mental health conditions like addiction.

neuroscience↗

Interindividual differences in predicting words versus sentence meaning:Explaining N400 amplitudes using large-scale neural network models

Prediction error, both at the level of sentence meaning and at the level of the next presented word, has been shown to successfully account for N400 amplitudes. Here we address the question of whether people differ in the representational level at which they implicitly predict upcoming language. To this end, we compute a measure of prediction error at the level of sentence meaning (magnitude of change in hidden layer activation, termed semantic update, in a neural network model of sentence comprehension, the Sentence Gestalt model) and a measure of prediction error at the level of the next presented word (surprisal from a next word prediction language model). When using both measures to predict N400 amplitudes during the reading of naturalistic texts, results showed that both measures significantly accounted for N400 amplitudes even when the other measure was controlled for. Most important for current purposes, both effects were significantly negatively correlated such that people with a reversed or weak surprisal effect showed the strongest influence of semantic update on N400 amplitudes, and random-effects model comparison showed that individuals differ in whether their N400 amplitudes are driven by semantic update only, by surprisal only, or by both, and that the most common model in the population was either semantic update or the combined model but clearly not the pure surprisal model. The current approach of combining large-scale models implementing different theoretical accounts with advanced model comparison techniques enables fine-grained investigations into the computational processes underlying N400 amplitudes, including interindividual differences.

neuroscience↗

Object naming is facilitated by semantic richness but inhibited by semantic density: Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence

Language production ultimately aims to convey meaning. Yet, words differ widely in the richness and density of their semantic representations and these differences impact conceptual and lexical processes during speech planning. Here, we replicate the recent finding that semantic richness, measured as the number of associated semantic features according to semantic feature production norms, facilitates object naming. In contrast, intercorrelational semantic feature density, measured as the degree of intercorrelation of a concepts features, presumably resulting in the coactivation of closely related concepts, has an inhibitory influence. We replicate the behavioral effects and investigate their relative time course and electrophysiological correlates. Both the facilitatory effect of high semantic richness and the inhibitory influence of high feature density were reflected in an increased posterior positivity starting at about 250 ms, in line with previous reports of posterior positivities in paradigms employing contextual manipulations to induce semantic interference during language production. Furthermore, amplitudes at the same posterior electrode sites were positively correlated with object naming times between about 230 and 380 ms. The observed effects follow naturally from the assumption of conceptual facilitation and simultaneous lexical competition, and are difficult to explain by language production theories dismissing lexical competition.

neuroscience↗