IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computational optimization of associative learning experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Filip Melinscak
  • Dominik R Bach

Abstract

With computational biology striving to provide more accurate theoretical accounts of biological systems, use of increasingly complex computational models seems inevitable. However, this trend engenders a challenge of optimal experimental design: due to the flexibility of complex models, it is difficult to intuitively design experiments that will efficiently expose differences between candidate models or allow accurate estimation of their parameters. This challenge is well exemplified in associative learning research. Associative learning theory has a rich tradition of computational modeling, resulting in a growing space of increasingly complex models, which in turn renders manual design of informative experiments difficult. Here we propose a novel method for computational optimization of associative learning experiments. We first formalize associative learning experiments using a low number of tunable design variables, to make optimization tractable. Next, we combine simulation-based Bayesian experimental design with Bayesian optimization to arrive at a flexible method of tuning design variables. Finally, we validate the proposed method through extensive simulations covering both the objectives of accurate parameter estimation and model selection. The validation results show that computationally optimized experimental designs have the potential to substantially improve upon manual designs drawn from the literature, even when prior information guiding the optimization is scarce. Computational optimization of experiments may help address recent concerns over reproducibility by increasing the expected utility of studies, and it may even incentivize practices such as study pre-registration, since optimization requires a pre-specified analysis plan. Moreover, design optimization has the potential not only to improve basic research in domains such as associative learning, but also to play an important role in translational research. For example, design of behavioral and physiological diagnostic tests in the nascent field of computational psychiatry could benefit from an optimization-based approach, similar to the one presented here.Author summary: To capture complex biological systems, computational biology harnesses accordingly complex models. The flexibility of such models allows them to better explain real-world data; however, this flexibility also creates a challenge in designing informative experiments. Because flexible models can, by definition, fit a variety of experimental outcomes, it is difficult to intuitively design experiments that will expose differences between such models, or allow their parameters to be estimated with accuracy. This challenge of experimental design is apparent in research on associative learning, where the tradition of modeling has produced a growing space of increasingly complex theories. Here, we propose to use computational optimization methods to design associative learning experiments. We first formalize associative learning experiments, making their optimization possible, and then we describe a Bayesian, simulation-based method of finding optimized experiments. In several simulated scenarios, we demonstrate that optimized experimental designs can substantially improve upon the utility of often-used canonical designs. Moreover, a similar approach could also be used in translational research; e.g., in the nascent field of computational psychiatry, designs of behavioral and physiological diagnostic tests could be computationally optimized.

Suggested Citation

  • Filip Melinscak & Dominik R Bach, 2020. "Computational optimization of associative learning experiments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007593
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007593
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007593&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007593?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. Elizabeth G. Ryan & Christopher C. Drovandi & James M. McGree & Anthony N. Pettitt, 2016. "A Review of Modern Computational Algorithms for Bayesian Optimal Design," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 84(1), pages 128-154, April.
    2. Athina Tzovara & Christoph W Korn & Dominik R Bach, 2018. "Human Pavlovian fear conditioning conforms to probabilistic learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Daniel Silk & Paul D W Kirk & Chris P Barnes & Tina Toni & Michael P H Stumpf, 2014. "Model Selection in Systems Biology Depends on Experimental Design," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Juliane Liepe & Sarah Filippi & Michał Komorowski & Michael P H Stumpf, 2013. "Maximizing the Information Content of Experiments in Systems Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Jean Daunizeau & Kerstin Preuschoff & Karl Friston & Klaas Stephan, 2011. "Optimizing Experimental Design for Comparing Models of Brain Function," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Denes Szucs & John P A Ioannidis, 2017. "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Samuel J Gershman, 2015. "A Unifying Probabilistic View of Associative Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Pierpaolo Brutti & Fulvio Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2014. "Bayesian-frequentist sample size determination: a game of two priors," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 72(2), pages 133-151, August.
    9. Marcus R. Munafò & Brian A. Nosek & Dorothy V. M. Bishop & Katherine S. Button & Christopher D. Chambers & Nathalie Percie du Sert & Uri Simonsohn & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers & Jennifer J. Ware & John P. A, 2017. "A manifesto for reproducible science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, January.
    10. Nosek, Brian A. & Ebersole, Charles R. & DeHaven, Alexander Carl & Mellor, David Thomas, 2018. "The Preregistration Revolution," OSF Preprints 2dxu5, Center for Open Science.
    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. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Mattia Prosperi & Jiang Bian & Iain E. Buchan & James S. Koopman & Matthew Sperrin & Mo Wang, 2019. "Raiders of the lost HARK: a reproducible inference framework for big data science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Kraft-Todd, Gordon T. & Rand, David G., 2021. "Practice what you preach: Credibility-enhancing displays and the growth of open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Brinkerink, Jasper & De Massis, Alfredo & Kellermanns, Franz, 2022. "One finding is no finding: Toward a replication culture in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    7. Thembi Mdluli & Gregery T Buzzard & Ann E Rundell, 2015. "Efficient Optimization of Stimuli for Model-Based Design of Experiments to Resolve Dynamical Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, September.
    8. Nosek, Brian A. & Errington, Timothy M., 2019. "What is replication?," MetaArXiv u4g6t, Center for Open Science.
    9. Merton S. Krause, 2019. "Replication and preregistration," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(5), pages 2647-2652, September.
    10. Logg, Jennifer M. & Dorison, Charles A., 2021. "Pre-registration: Weighing costs and benefits for researchers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 18-27.
    11. Persson, Emil & Tinghög, Gustav, 2020. "Opportunity cost neglect in public policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 301-312.
    12. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    13. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    14. Vigren, Andreas & Pyddoke, Roger, 2020. "The impact on bus ridership of passenger incentive contracts in public transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 144-159.
    15. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    16. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    17. Severinsen, A. & Myrland, Ø., 2022. "ShinyRBase: Near real-time energy saving models using reactive programming," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    18. Holger Mohr & Katharina Zwosta & Dimitrije Markovic & Sebastian Bitzer & Uta Wolfensteller & Hannes Ruge, 2018. "Deterministic response strategies in a trial-and-error learning task," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Shane Timmons & Terence J. McElvaney & Peter D. Lunn, 2019. "An experiment for regulatory policy on broadband speed advertising," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 3(2), pages 17-24, December.
    20. Elbæk, Christian T. & Lystbæk, Martin Nørhede & Mitkidis, Panagiotis, 2022. "On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    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:pcbi00:1007593. 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.