IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability of gamified reinforcement learning in densely sampled longitudinal assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Monja P Neuser
  • Anne Kühnel
  • Franziska Kräutlein
  • Vanessa Teckentrup
  • Jennifer Svaldi
  • Nils B Kroemer

Abstract

Reinforcement learning is a core facet of motivation and alterations have been associated with various mental disorders. To build better models of individual learning, repeated measurement of value-based decision-making is crucial. However, the focus on lab-based assessment of reward learning has limited the number of measurements and the test-retest reliability of many decision-related parameters is therefore unknown. In this paper, we present an open-source cross-platform application Influenca that provides a novel reward learning task complemented by ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of current mental and physiological states for repeated assessment over weeks. In this task, players have to identify the most effective medication by integrating reward values with changing probabilities to win (according to random Gaussian walks). Participants can complete up to 31 runs with 150 trials each. To encourage replay, in-game screens provide feedback on the progress. Using an initial validation sample of 384 players (9729 runs), we found that reinforcement learning parameters such as the learning rate and reward sensitivity show poor to fair intra-class correlations (ICC: 0.22–0.53), indicating substantial within- and between-subject variance. Notably, items assessing the psychological state showed comparable ICCs as reinforcement learning parameters. To conclude, our innovative and openly customizable app framework provides a gamified task that optimizes repeated assessments of reward learning to better quantify intra- and inter-individual differences in value-based decision-making over time.Author summary: Learning from rewards is a fundamental aspect of motivation and alterations in learning and value-based choices are evident across different mental disorders. However, the traditional lab-based assessments provide only limited measurements, hindering our understanding of potential changes in learning and decision making over time and their association with mental health. To overcome this limitation, we developed an open-source application called Influenca. It combines a new reward learning task with assessments of mental and physiological states, allowing for repeated measurements over weeks. The task involves identifying the most effective medication by considering rewards and changing probabilities of winning and participants receive in-game feedback on their progress. In this validation study, we dissect variability in reinforcement learning parameters within and between individuals, highlighting the importance of repeated assessments for clinical applications. Crucially, we show that the quality of the measurement improves over runs as indicated by a higher test-retest reliability of differences in behavior. In conclusion, the Influenca app offers a gamified task that empowers researchers to better track individual changes in value-based decision-making over time. By utilizing this tool, users can gain insights into aberrant decision-making processes in mental disorders and potentially monitor the effects of interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Monja P Neuser & Anne Kühnel & Franziska Kräutlein & Vanessa Teckentrup & Jennifer Svaldi & Nils B Kroemer, 2023. "Reliability of gamified reinforcement learning in densely sampled longitudinal assessments," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000330
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000330
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000330&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000330?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. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    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. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    2. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    3. Sashittal, Hemant C. & Sriramachandramurthy, Rajendran & Hodis, Monica, 2012. "Targeting college students on Facebook? How to stop wasting your money," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 495-507.
    4. Peter S. Riefer & Bradley C. Love, 2015. "Unfazed by Both the Bull and Bear: Strategic Exploration in Dynamic Environments," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-11, August.
    5. Makoto Naruse & Eiji Yamamoto & Takashi Nakao & Takuma Akimoto & Hayato Saigo & Kazuya Okamura & Izumi Ojima & Georg Northoff & Hirokazu Hori, 2018. "Why is the environment important for decision making? Local reservoir model for choice-based learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Jeremy Gordon & Flavio Chierichetti & Alessandro Panconesi & Giovanni Pezzulo, 2023. "Information foraging with an oracle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Christina Fang & Daniel Levinthal, 2009. "Near-Term Liability of Exploitation: Exploration and Exploitation in Multistage Problems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 538-551, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Jean Daunizeau & Hanneke E M den Ouden & Matthias Pessiglione & Stefan J Kiebel & Klaas E Stephan & Karl J Friston, 2010. "Observing the Observer (I): Meta-Bayesian Models of Learning and Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Elyse H Norton & Stephen M Fleming & Nathaniel D Daw & Michael S Landy, 2017. "Suboptimal Criterion Learning in Static and Dynamic Environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, January.
    11. Ayaka Kato & Kenji Morita, 2016. "Forgetting in Reinforcement Learning Links Sustained Dopamine Signals to Motivation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-41, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Pérez-Centeno, Victor, 2018. "Brain-driven entrepreneurship research: Expanded review and research agenda towards entrepreneurial enhancement," Working Papers 02/18, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    14. Oded Berger-Tal & Jonathan Nathan & Ehud Meron & David Saltz, 2014. "The Exploration-Exploitation Dilemma: A Multidisciplinary Framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-8, April.
    15. Nancy Garon & Ellen Doucet & Bronwyn Inness, 2024. "Decomposing decision-making in preschoolers: Making decisions under ambiguity versus risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-31, September.
    16. Ian Krajbich & Todd Hare & Björn Bartling & Yosuke Morishima & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "A Common Mechanism Underlying Food Choice and Social Decisions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Maime Guan & Ryan Stokes & Joachim Vandekerckhove & Michael D. Lee, 2020. "A cognitive modeling analysis of risk in sequential choice tasks}," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 823-850, September.
    18. Kiyohito Iigaya & Sanghyun Yi & Iman A. Wahle & Sandy Tanwisuth & Logan Cross & John P. O’Doherty, 2023. "Neural mechanisms underlying the hierarchical construction of perceived aesthetic value," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Matthew R Nassar & Joshua I Gold, 2013. "A Healthy Fear of the Unknown: Perspectives on the Interpretation of Parameter Fits from Computational Models in Neuroscience," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-6, April.
    20. Georgy Antonov & Peter Dayan, 2025. "Exploring replay," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, December.

    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:pdig00:0000330. 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: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    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.