IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1001662.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brain Systems for Probabilistic and Dynamic Prediction: Computational Specificity and Integration

Author

Listed:
  • Jill X O'Reilly
  • Saad Jbabdi
  • Matthew F S Rushworth
  • Timothy E J Behrens

Abstract

: Using computational modelling and neuroimaging, two distinct brain systems are shown to use distinct algorithms to make parallel predictions about the environment. The predictions are then optimally combined to control behavior. A computational approach to functional specialization suggests that brain systems can be characterized in terms of the types of computations they perform, rather than their sensory or behavioral domains. We contrasted the neural systems associated with two computationally distinct forms of predictive model: a reinforcement-learning model of the environment obtained through experience with discrete events, and continuous dynamic forward modeling. By manipulating the precision with which each type of prediction could be used, we caused participants to shift computational strategies within a single spatial prediction task. Hence (using fMRI) we showed that activity in two brain systems (typically associated with reward learning and motor control) could be dissociated in terms of the forms of computations that were performed there, even when both systems were used to make parallel predictions of the same event. A region in parietal cortex, which was sensitive to the divergence between the predictions of the models and anatomically connected to both computational networks, is proposed to mediate integration of the two predictive modes to produce a single behavioral output.Author Summary: To interact effectively with the environment, brains must predict future events based on past and current experience. Predictions associated with different behavioural domains of the brain are often associated with different algorithmic forms. For example, whereas the motor system makes dynamic moment-by-moment predictions based on physical world models, the reward system is more typically associated with statistical predictions learned over discrete events. However, in perceptually rich natural environments, behaviour is not neatly segmented into tasks like “reward learning” and “motor control.” Instead, many different types of information are available in parallel. The brain must both select behaviourally relevant information and arbitrate between conflicting predictions. To investigate how the brain balances and integrates different types of predictive information, we set up a task in which humans predicted an object's flight trajectory by using one of two strategies: either a statistical model (based on where objects had often landed in the past) or dynamic calculation of the current flight trajectory. Using fMRI, we show that brain activity switches between different regions of the brain, depending on which predictive strategy was used, even though behavioural output remained the same. Furthermore, we found that brain regions involved in selecting actions took into account the predictions from both competing algorithms, weighting each algorithm optimally in terms of the precision with which it could predict the event of interest. Thus, these distinct brain systems compete to control predictive behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill X O'Reilly & Saad Jbabdi & Matthew F S Rushworth & Timothy E J Behrens, 2013. "Brain Systems for Probabilistic and Dynamic Prediction: Computational Specificity and Integration," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001662
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001662
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001662&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001662?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tianming Yang & Michael N. Shadlen, 2007. "Probabilistic reasoning by neurons," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7148), pages 1075-1080, June.
    2. Michael L. Platt & Paul W. Glimcher, 1999. "Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6741), pages 233-238, July.
    3. Elise Payzan-LeNestour & Peter Bossaerts, 2011. "Risk, Unexpected Uncertainty, and Estimation Uncertainty: Bayesian Learning in Unstable Settings," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Kathleen M. O'Craven & Paul E. Downing & Nancy Kanwisher, 1999. "fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection," Nature, Nature, vol. 401(6753), pages 584-587, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhewei Zhang & Chaoqun Yin & Tianming Yang, 2022. "Evidence accumulation occurs locally in the parietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Micha Heilbron & Florent Meyniel, 2019. "Confidence resets reveal hierarchical adaptive learning in humans," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, April.
    3. Payam Piray & Nathaniel D Daw, 2020. "A simple model for learning in volatile environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Laurette Dubé & Antoine Bechara & Ulf Böckenholt & Asim Ansari & Alain Dagher & Mark Daniel & Wayne DeSarbo & Lesley Fellows & Ross Hammond & Terry Huang & Scott Huettel & Yan Kestens & Bärbel Knäuper, 2009. "Towards a brain-to-society systems model of individual choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 105-106, March.
    5. Marine Hainguerlot & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2023. "How Overconfidence Bias Influences Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-04197403, HAL.
    6. Hu, Yingyao & Kayaba, Yutaka & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "Nonparametric learning rules from bandit experiments: The eyes have it!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 215-231.
    7. Glimcher, Paul W. & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2023. "Expected subjective value theory (ESVT): A representation of decision under risk and certainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 110-128.
    8. Jan B Engelmann & C Monica Capra & Charles Noussair & Gregory S Berns, 2009. "Expert Financial Advice Neurobiologically “Offloads” Financial Decision-Making under Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, March.
    9. Jeffrey J Stott & A David Redish, 2015. "Representations of Value in the Brain: An Embarrassment of Riches?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-7, June.
    10. Wan-Yu Shih & Hsiang-Yu Yu & Cheng-Chia Lee & Chien-Chen Chou & Chien Chen & Paul W. Glimcher & Shih-Wei Wu, 2023. "Electrophysiological population dynamics reveal context dependencies during decision making in human frontal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Knutson, Brian & Peterson, Richard, 2005. "Neurally reconstructing expected utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 305-315, August.
    12. Valeria Faralla & Francesca Benuzzi & Fausta Lui & Patrizia Baraldi & Paolo Nichelli & Nicola Dimitri, 2010. "Gains and Losses: A Common Neural Network for Economic Behaviour," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 033, University of Siena.
    13. Ryan Webb & Paul W. Glimcher & Kenway Louie, 2021. "The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, January.
    14. Mateus Joffily & Giorgio Coricelli, 2013. "Emotional Valence and the Free-Energy Principle," Post-Print halshs-00834063, HAL.
    15. Thore Apitz & Nico Bunzeck, 2014. "Early Effects of Reward Anticipation Are Modulated by Dopaminergic Stimulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-11, October.
    16. Daniel S Kluger & Nico Broers & Marlen A Roehe & Moritz F Wurm & Niko A Busch & Ricarda I Schubotz, 2020. "Exploitation of local and global information in predictive processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Dickhaut, John & Smith, Vernon & Xin, Baohua & Rustichini, Aldo, 2013. "Human economic choice as costly information processing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 206-221.
    18. Engelmann, Jan B. & Damaraju, Eswar & Padmala, Srikanth & Pessoa, Luiz, 2009. "Combined effects of attention and motivation on visual task performance: transient and sustained motivational effects," MPRA Paper 52133, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    20. Dimitrije Marković & Andrea M F Reiter & Stefan J Kiebel, 2019. "Predicting change: Approximate inference under explicit representation of temporal structure in changing environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001662. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.