Decomposing the roles of perseveration and expected value representation in models of the Iowa gambling task

Models of human behavior in the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) have played a pivotal role in accounting for behavioral differences during decision-making. One critical difference between models that have been used to account for behavior in the IGT is the inclusion or exclusion of the assumption that participants tend to persevere, or stay with the same option over consecutive trials. Models that allow for this assumption include win-stay-lose-shift (WSLS) models and reinforcement learning (RL) models that include a decay learning rule where expected values for each option decay as they are chosen less often. One shortcoming of RL models that have included decay rules is that the tendency to persevere by sticking with the same option has been conflated with the tendency to select the option with the highest expected value because a single term is used to represent both of these tendencies. In the current work we isolate the tendencies to perseverate and to select the option with the highest expected value by including them as separate terms in a Value-Plus-Perseveration (VPP) RL model. Overall the VPP model provides a better fit to data from a large group of participants than models that include a single term to account for both perseveration and the representation of expected value. Simulations of each model show that the VPP model's simulated choices most closely resemble the decision-making behavior of human subjects. In addition, we also find that parameter estimates of loss aversion are more strongly correlated with performance when perseverative tendencies and expected value representations are decomposed as separate terms within the model. The results suggest that the tendency to persevere and the tendency to select the option that leads to the best net payoff are central components of decision-making behavior in the IGT. Future work should use this model to better examine decision-making behavior.

[1]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[2]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[3]  A. Damasio,et al.  Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex , 1994, Cognition.

[4]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Comparison of Decision Learning Models Using the Generalization Criterion Method , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[6]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Bayesian parameter estimation in the Expectancy Valence model of the Iowa gambling task , 2010 .

[7]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Evaluating generalizability and parameter consistency in learning models , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[8]  Arthur B Markman,et al.  Regulatory fit effects in a choice task , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Eldad Yechiam,et al.  Recency gets larger as lesions move from anterior to posterior locations within the ventromedial prefrontal cortex , 2010, Behavioural Brain Research.

[10]  Simone G. Shamay-Tsoory,et al.  Adapted to explore: Reinforcement learning in Autistic Spectrum Conditions , 2010, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  P. Glimcher,et al.  JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2005, 84, 555–579 NUMBER 3(NOVEMBER) DYNAMIC RESPONSE-BY-RESPONSE MODELS OF MATCHING BEHAVIOR IN RHESUS MONKEYS , 2022 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[13]  Joshua W. Brown,et al.  A Model-Based fMRI Analysis with Hierarchical Bayesian Parameter Estimation , 2011 .

[14]  E. Yechiam,et al.  Non-specific effects of methylphenidate (Ritalin) on cognitive ability and decision-making of ADHD and healthy adults , 2010, Psychopharmacology.

[15]  J. Hsieh,et al.  Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[16]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[17]  A. Bechara,et al.  Do individual differences in Iowa Gambling Task performance predict adaptive decision making for risky gains and losses? , 2010, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[18]  Darrell A. Worthy,et al.  Heterogeneity of strategy use in the Iowa gambling task: A comparison of win-stay/lose-shift and reinforcement learning models , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Christopher K. Kovach,et al.  Anterior Prefrontal Cortex Contributes to Action Selection through Tracking of Recent Reward Trends , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[20]  Steven W Anderson,et al.  Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  B. Love,et al.  Short-term gains, long-term pains: How cues about state aid learning in dynamic environments , 2009, Cognition.

[22]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning , 1992, Handbook of Machine Learning.

[23]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Model Comparisons and Model Selections Based on Generalization Criterion Methodology. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[24]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment: decomposing performance on the Bechara gambling task. , 2002, Psychological assessment.

[25]  Woojae Kim,et al.  A Model-Based fMRI Analysis with Hierarchical Bayesian Parameter Estimation. , 2013, Journal of neuroscience, psychology, and economics.

[26]  J. Hsieh,et al.  Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task? , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[27]  N. Daw,et al.  Reinforcement Learning Signals in the Human Striatum Distinguish Learners from Nonlearners during Reward-Based Decision Making , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Darrell A. Worthy,et al.  Working-memory load and temporal myopia in dynamic decision making. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  A. Boeka,et al.  The Iowa gambling task as a measure of decision making in women with bulimia nervosa , 2006, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[30]  Yao-Chu Chiu,et al.  Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[31]  Eldad Yechiam,et al.  Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision making , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  A. Kudryavtsev,et al.  Description-based and experience-based decisions: individual analysis , 2012, Judgment and Decision Making.

[33]  W. K. Campbell,et al.  Frequent Card Playing and Pathological Gambling: The Utility of the Georgia Gambling Task and Iowa Gambling Task for Predicting Pathology , 2007, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[34]  Darrell A. Worthy,et al.  Age-Based Differences in Strategy Use in Choice Tasks , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[35]  A. Roth,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria , 1998 .

[36]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Using Cognitive Models to Map Relations Between Neuropsychological Disorders and Human Decision-Making Deficits , 2005, Psychological science.

[37]  Bradley C Love,et al.  Learning in Noise: Dynamic Decision-Making in a Variable Environment. , 2009, Journal of mathematical psychology.