» Articles » PMID: 35978035

A Comparison of Reinforcement Learning Models of Human Spatial Navigation

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2022 Aug 17
PMID 35978035
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) models have been influential in characterizing human learning and decision making, but few studies apply them to characterizing human spatial navigation and even fewer systematically compare RL models under different navigation requirements. Because RL can characterize one's learning strategies quantitatively and in a continuous manner, and one's consistency of using such strategies, it can provide a novel and important perspective for understanding the marked individual differences in human navigation and disentangle navigation strategies from navigation performance. One-hundred and fourteen participants completed wayfinding tasks in a virtual environment where different phases manipulated navigation requirements. We compared performance of five RL models (3 model-free, 1 model-based and 1 "hybrid") at fitting navigation behaviors in different phases. Supporting implications from prior literature, the hybrid model provided the best fit regardless of navigation requirements, suggesting the majority of participants rely on a blend of model-free (route-following) and model-based (cognitive mapping) learning in such navigation scenarios. Furthermore, consistent with a key prediction, there was a correlation in the hybrid model between the weight on model-based learning (i.e., navigation strategy) and the navigator's exploration vs. exploitation tendency (i.e., consistency of using such navigation strategy), which was modulated by navigation task requirements. Together, we not only show how computational findings from RL align with the spatial navigation literature, but also reveal how the relationship between navigation strategy and a person's consistency using such strategies changes as navigation requirements change.

Citing Articles

Spatially organized striatal neuromodulator release encodes trajectory errors.

Brown E, Zi Y, Vu M, Bouabid S, Lindsey J, Godfrey-Nwachukwu C bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39185163 PMC: 11343099. DOI: 10.1101/2024.08.13.607797.


Collaborative robots can augment human cognition in regret-sensitive tasks.

Schlafly M, Prabhakar A, Popovic K, Schlafly G, Kim C, Murphey T PNAS Nexus. 2024; 3(2):pgae016.

PMID: 38725525 PMC: 11079486. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae016.


The neural correlates of memory integration in value-based decision-making during human spatial navigation.

He Q, Liu J, Eschapasse L, Zagora A, Brown T Neuropsychologia. 2023; 193:108758.

PMID: 38103679 PMC: 11867550. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108758.

References
1.
Eckstein M, Wilbrecht L, Collins A . What do Reinforcement Learning Models Measure? Interpreting Model Parameters in Cognition and Neuroscience. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2022; 41:128-137. PMC: 8722372. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.06.004. View

2.
Gershman S, Daw N . Reinforcement Learning and Episodic Memory in Humans and Animals: An Integrative Framework. Annu Rev Psychol. 2016; 68:101-128. PMC: 5953519. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033625. View

3.
Eckstein M, Collins A . Computational evidence for hierarchically structured reinforcement learning in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(47):29381-29389. PMC: 7703642. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1912330117. View

4.
Collins A, Frank M . How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis. Eur J Neurosci. 2012; 35(7):1024-35. PMC: 3390186. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07980.x. View

5.
Otto A, Gershman S, Markman A, Daw N . The curse of planning: dissecting multiple reinforcement-learning systems by taxing the central executive. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24(5):751-61. PMC: 3843765. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612463080. View