How do people solve the "weather prediction" task?: individual variability in strategies for probabilistic category learning.

Probabilistic category learning is often assumed to be an incrementally learned cognitive skill, dependent on nondeclarative memory systems. One paradigm in particular, the weather prediction task, has been used in over half a dozen neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies to date. Because of the growing interest in using this task and others like it as behavioral tools for studying the cognitive neuroscience of cognitive skill learning, it becomes especially important to understand how subjects solve this kind of task and whether all subjects learn it in the same way. We present here new experimental and theoretical analyses of the weather prediction task that indicate that there are at least three different strategies that describe how subjects learn this task. (1) An optimal multi-cue strategy, in which they respond to each pattern on the basis of associations of all four cues with each outcome; (2) a one-cue strategy, in which they respond on the basis of presence or absence of a single cue, disregarding all other cues; or (3) a singleton strategy, in which they learn only about the four patterns that have only one cue present and all others absent. This variability in how subjects approach this task may have important implications for interpreting how different brain regions are involved in probabilistic category learning.

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

[2]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[3]  R. Nosofsky American Psychological Association, Inc. Choice, Similarity, and the Context Theory of Classification , 2022 .

[4]  R. Nosofsky Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. , 1984 .

[5]  W. Estes Array models for category learning , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  G. Bower,et al.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  Mark A. Gluck,et al.  Component and pattern information in adaptive networks , 1990 .

[8]  David R. Shanks,et al.  CATEGORIZATION BY A CONNECTIONIST NETWORK , 1991 .

[9]  David R. Shanks,et al.  CATEGORIZATION BY A CONNECTIONIST NETWORK , 1991 .

[10]  M. Gluck,et al.  Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia. , 1994, Learning & memory.

[11]  L R Squire,et al.  Dissociable properties of memory systems: differences in the flexibility of declarative and nondeclarative knowledge. , 1996, Behavioral neuroscience.

[12]  Jane S. Paulsen,et al.  Dissociations within nondeclarative memory in Huntington's disease. , 1996 .

[13]  Jennifer A. Mangels,et al.  A Neostriatal Habit Learning System in Humans , 1996, Science.

[14]  M A Gluck,et al.  Late-training amnesic deficits in probabilistic category learning: a neurocomputational analysis. , 1996, Learning & memory.

[15]  Carol A. Seger,et al.  Striatal activation during acquisition of a cognitive skill. , 1999, Neuropsychology.

[16]  A. Antal,et al.  Schizophrenics know more than they can tell: probabilistic classification learning in schizophrenia , 2000, Psychological Medicine.

[17]  M. Gluck,et al.  Interactive memory systems in the human brain , 2001, Nature.