IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v14y2023i1d10.1038_s41467-023-43250-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distinct value computations support rapid sequential decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Mah

    (New York University)

  • Shannon S. Schiereck

    (New York University)

  • Veronica Bossio

    (New York University
    Columbia University)

  • Christine M. Constantinople

    (New York University)

Abstract

The value of the environment determines animals’ motivational states and sets expectations for error-based learning1–3. How are values computed? Reinforcement learning systems can store or cache values of states or actions that are learned from experience, or they can compute values using a model of the environment to simulate possible futures3. These value computations have distinct trade-offs, and a central question is how neural systems decide which computations to use or whether/how to combine them4–8. Here we show that rats use distinct value computations for sequential decisions within single trials. We used high-throughput training to collect statistically powerful datasets from 291 rats performing a temporal wagering task with hidden reward states. Rats adjusted how quickly they initiated trials and how long they waited for rewards across states, balancing effort and time costs against expected rewards. Statistical modeling revealed that animals computed the value of the environment differently when initiating trials versus when deciding how long to wait for rewards, even though these decisions were only seconds apart. Moreover, value estimates interacted via a dynamic learning rate. Our results reveal how distinct value computations interact on rapid timescales, and demonstrate the power of using high-throughput training to understand rich, cognitive behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Mah & Shannon S. Schiereck & Veronica Bossio & Christine M. Constantinople, 2023. "Distinct value computations support rapid sequential decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:14:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-023-43250-x
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-43250-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43250-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-023-43250-x?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. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Kiyohito Iigaya & Madalena S. Fonseca & Masayoshi Murakami & Zachary F. Mainen & Peter Dayan, 2018. "An effect of serotonergic stimulation on learning rates for rewards apparent after long intertrial intervals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Bruno Miranda & W M Nishantha Malalasekera & Timothy E Behrens & Peter Dayan & Steven W Kennerley, 2020. "Combined model-free and model-sensitive reinforcement learning in non-human primates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Ainhoa Hermoso-Mendizabal & Alexandre Hyafil & Pavel E. Rueda-Orozco & Santiago Jaramillo & David Robbe & Jaime Rocha, 2020. "Response outcomes gate the impact of expectations on perceptual decisions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Carolina Feher da Silva & Todd A. Hare, 2020. "Humans primarily use model-based inference in the two-stage task," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 1053-1066, 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. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    2. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    3. Castilla, Carolina & Haab, Timothy C., 2010. "Asymmetric Search and Loss Aversion: Choice Experiment on Consumer Willingness to Search in the Gasoline Retail Market," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61672, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    6. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    7. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    8. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.
    9. Yuval Arbel & Danny Ben-Shahar & Stuart Gabriel, 2016. "Are The Disabled Less Loss Averse? Evidence From A Natural Policy Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1291-1318, April.
    10. A. Banerji & Neha Gupta, 2011. "Do Auction Bids Betray Expectations-Based Reference Dependent Preferences? A Test, Experimental Evidence, And Estimates Of Loss Aversion," Working papers 206, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    11. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    13. Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2016. "How Do Agents React to Dynamic Wage Increases? An Experimental Study," IZA Discussion Papers 9855, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    15. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    16. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2020. "Memory, Attention, and Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1399-1442.
    17. Ran Spiegler, 2012. "Monopoly pricing when consumers are antagonized by unexpected price increases: a “cover version” of the Heidhues–Kőszegi–Rabin model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(3), pages 695-711, November.
    18. Zhang, nan & Qin, Botao, 2020. "Reference point adaptation and air quality – Experimental evidence with anti-PM 2.5 facemasks from China," MPRA Paper 102935, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    20. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.

    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:nat:natcom:v:14:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-023-43250-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.