Cargando…
A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation
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 on...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35978035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18245-1 |
_version_ | 1784769636383850496 |
---|---|
author | He, Qiliang Liu, Jancy Ling Eschapasse, Lou Beveridge, Elizabeth H. Brown, Thackery I. |
author_facet | He, Qiliang Liu, Jancy Ling Eschapasse, Lou Beveridge, Elizabeth H. Brown, Thackery I. |
author_sort | He, Qiliang |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9385652 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93856522022-08-19 A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation He, Qiliang Liu, Jancy Ling Eschapasse, Lou Beveridge, Elizabeth H. Brown, Thackery I. Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9385652/ /pubmed/35978035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18245-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article He, Qiliang Liu, Jancy Ling Eschapasse, Lou Beveridge, Elizabeth H. Brown, Thackery I. A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
title | A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
title_full | A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
title_fullStr | A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
title_short | A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
title_sort | comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35978035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18245-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heqiliang acomparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT liujancyling acomparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT eschapasselou acomparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT beveridgeelizabethh acomparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT brownthackeryi acomparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT heqiliang comparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT liujancyling comparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT eschapasselou comparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT beveridgeelizabethh comparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation AT brownthackeryi comparisonofreinforcementlearningmodelsofhumanspatialnavigation |