Cargando…

Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning

Exploration in reward-based motor learning is observable in experimental data as increased variability. In order to quantify exploration, we compare three methods for estimating other sources of variability: sensorimotor noise. We use a task in which participants could receive stochastic binary rewa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Mastrigt, Nina M., Smeets, Jeroen B. J., van der Kooij, Katinka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7117770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32240174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226789
_version_ 1783514440896872448
author van Mastrigt, Nina M.
Smeets, Jeroen B. J.
van der Kooij, Katinka
author_facet van Mastrigt, Nina M.
Smeets, Jeroen B. J.
van der Kooij, Katinka
author_sort van Mastrigt, Nina M.
collection PubMed
description Exploration in reward-based motor learning is observable in experimental data as increased variability. In order to quantify exploration, we compare three methods for estimating other sources of variability: sensorimotor noise. We use a task in which participants could receive stochastic binary reward feedback following a target-directed weight shift. Participants first performed six baseline blocks without feedback, and next twenty blocks alternating with and without feedback. Variability was assessed based on trial-to-trial changes in movement endpoint. We estimated sensorimotor noise by the median squared trial-to-trial change in movement endpoint for trials in which no exploration is expected. We identified three types of such trials: trials in baseline blocks, trials in the blocks without feedback, and rewarded trials in the blocks with feedback. We estimated exploration by the median squared trial-to-trial change following non-rewarded trials minus sensorimotor noise. As expected, variability was larger following non-rewarded trials than following rewarded trials. This indicates that our reward-based weight-shifting task successfully induced exploration. Most importantly, our three estimates of sensorimotor noise differed: the estimate based on rewarded trials was significantly lower than the estimates based on the two types of trials without feedback. Consequently, the estimates of exploration also differed. We conclude that the quantification of exploration depends critically on the type of trials used to estimate sensorimotor noise. We recommend the use of variability following rewarded trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7117770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71177702020-04-09 Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning van Mastrigt, Nina M. Smeets, Jeroen B. J. van der Kooij, Katinka PLoS One Research Article Exploration in reward-based motor learning is observable in experimental data as increased variability. In order to quantify exploration, we compare three methods for estimating other sources of variability: sensorimotor noise. We use a task in which participants could receive stochastic binary reward feedback following a target-directed weight shift. Participants first performed six baseline blocks without feedback, and next twenty blocks alternating with and without feedback. Variability was assessed based on trial-to-trial changes in movement endpoint. We estimated sensorimotor noise by the median squared trial-to-trial change in movement endpoint for trials in which no exploration is expected. We identified three types of such trials: trials in baseline blocks, trials in the blocks without feedback, and rewarded trials in the blocks with feedback. We estimated exploration by the median squared trial-to-trial change following non-rewarded trials minus sensorimotor noise. As expected, variability was larger following non-rewarded trials than following rewarded trials. This indicates that our reward-based weight-shifting task successfully induced exploration. Most importantly, our three estimates of sensorimotor noise differed: the estimate based on rewarded trials was significantly lower than the estimates based on the two types of trials without feedback. Consequently, the estimates of exploration also differed. We conclude that the quantification of exploration depends critically on the type of trials used to estimate sensorimotor noise. We recommend the use of variability following rewarded trials. Public Library of Science 2020-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7117770/ /pubmed/32240174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226789 Text en © 2020 van Mastrigt et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
van Mastrigt, Nina M.
Smeets, Jeroen B. J.
van der Kooij, Katinka
Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
title Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
title_full Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
title_fullStr Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
title_short Quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
title_sort quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7117770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32240174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226789
work_keys_str_mv AT vanmastrigtninam quantifyingexplorationinrewardbasedmotorlearning
AT smeetsjeroenbj quantifyingexplorationinrewardbasedmotorlearning
AT vanderkooijkatinka quantifyingexplorationinrewardbasedmotorlearning