» Articles » PMID: 39240757

Using Recurrent Neural Network to Estimate Irreducible Stochasticity in Human Choice Behavior

Overview
Journal Elife
Specialty Biology
Date 2024 Sep 6
PMID 39240757
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Theoretical computational models are widely used to describe latent cognitive processes. However, these models do not equally explain data across participants, with some individuals showing a bigger predictive gap than others. In the current study, we examined the use of theory-independent models, specifically recurrent neural networks (RNNs), to classify the source of a predictive gap in the observed data of a single individual. This approach aims to identify whether the low predictability of behavioral data is mainly due to noisy decision-making or misspecification of the theoretical model. First, we used computer simulation in the context of reinforcement learning to demonstrate that RNNs can be used to identify model misspecification in simulated agents with varying degrees of behavioral noise. Specifically, both prediction performance and the number of RNN training epochs (i.e., the point of early stopping) can be used to estimate the amount of stochasticity in the data. Second, we applied our approach to an empirical dataset where the actions of low IQ participants, compared with high IQ participants, showed lower predictability by a well-known theoretical model (i.e., Daw's hybrid model for the two-step task). Both the predictive gap and the point of early stopping of the RNN suggested that model misspecification is similar across individuals. This led us to a provisional conclusion that low IQ subjects are mostly noisier compared to their high IQ peers, rather than being more misspecified by the theoretical model. We discuss the implications and limitations of this approach, considering the growing literature in both theoretical and data-driven computational modeling in decision-making science.

Citing Articles

Active reinforcement learning versus action bias and hysteresis: control with a mixture of experts and nonexperts.

Colas J, ODoherty J, Grafton S PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(3):e1011950.

PMID: 38552190 PMC: 10980507. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011950.

References
1.
Dezfouli A, Griffiths K, Ramos F, Dayan P, Balleine B . Models that learn how humans learn: The case of decision-making and its disorders. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019; 15(6):e1006903. PMC: 6588260. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006903. View

2.
Palminteri S, Wyart V, Koechlin E . The Importance of Falsification in Computational Cognitive Modeling. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017; 21(6):425-433. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.011. View

3.
Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant T, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D . SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020; 17(3):261-272. PMC: 7056644. DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2. View

4.
Stephan K, Penny W, Daunizeau J, Moran R, Friston K . Bayesian model selection for group studies. Neuroimage. 2009; 46(4):1004-17. PMC: 2703732. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.025. View

5.
Faisal A, Selen L, Wolpert D . Noise in the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(4):292-303. PMC: 2631351. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2258. View