一刀切:成语计算模型揭示学习和元学习策略的个体差异

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Topics in Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1111/tops.12730
Theodros M. Haile, Chantel S. Prat, Andrea Stocco
{"title":"一刀切:成语计算模型揭示学习和元学习策略的个体差异","authors":"Theodros M. Haile, Chantel S. Prat, Andrea Stocco","doi":"10.1111/tops.12730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Complex skill learning depends on the joint contribution of multiple interacting systems: working memory (WM), declarative long‐term memory (LTM) and reinforcement learning (RL). The present study aims to understand individual differences in the relative contributions of these systems during learning. We built four idiographic, ACT‐R models of performance on the stimulus‐response learning, Reinforcement Learning Working Memory task. The task consisted of short 3‐image, and long 6‐image, feedback‐based learning blocks. A no‐feedback test phase was administered after learning, with an interfering task inserted between learning and test. Our four models included two single‐mechanism RL and LTM models, and two integrated RL‐LTM models: (a) RL‐based meta‐learning, which selects RL or LTM to learn based on recent success, and (b) a parameterized RL‐LTM selection model at fixed proportions independent of learning success. Each model was the best fit for some proportion of our learners (LTM: 68.7%, RL: 4.8%, Meta‐RL: 13.25%, bias‐RL:13.25% of participants), suggesting fundamental differences in the way individuals deploy basic learning mechanisms, even for a simple stimulus‐response task. Finally, long‐term declarative memory seems to be the preferred learning strategy for this task regardless of block length (3‐ vs 6‐image blocks), as determined by the large number of subjects whose learning characteristics were best captured by the LTM only model, and a preference for LTM over RL in both of our integrated‐models, owing to the strength of our idiographic approach.","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One Size Does Not Fit All: Idiographic Computational Models Reveal Individual Differences in Learning and Meta‐Learning Strategies\",\"authors\":\"Theodros M. Haile, Chantel S. Prat, Andrea Stocco\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/tops.12730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Complex skill learning depends on the joint contribution of multiple interacting systems: working memory (WM), declarative long‐term memory (LTM) and reinforcement learning (RL). The present study aims to understand individual differences in the relative contributions of these systems during learning. We built four idiographic, ACT‐R models of performance on the stimulus‐response learning, Reinforcement Learning Working Memory task. The task consisted of short 3‐image, and long 6‐image, feedback‐based learning blocks. A no‐feedback test phase was administered after learning, with an interfering task inserted between learning and test. Our four models included two single‐mechanism RL and LTM models, and two integrated RL‐LTM models: (a) RL‐based meta‐learning, which selects RL or LTM to learn based on recent success, and (b) a parameterized RL‐LTM selection model at fixed proportions independent of learning success. Each model was the best fit for some proportion of our learners (LTM: 68.7%, RL: 4.8%, Meta‐RL: 13.25%, bias‐RL:13.25% of participants), suggesting fundamental differences in the way individuals deploy basic learning mechanisms, even for a simple stimulus‐response task. Finally, long‐term declarative memory seems to be the preferred learning strategy for this task regardless of block length (3‐ vs 6‐image blocks), as determined by the large number of subjects whose learning characteristics were best captured by the LTM only model, and a preference for LTM over RL in both of our integrated‐models, owing to the strength of our idiographic approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12730\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12730","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

复杂技能的学习取决于多个相互作用系统的共同贡献:工作记忆(WM)、陈述性长期记忆(LTM)和强化学习(RL)。本研究旨在了解学习过程中这些系统相对贡献的个体差异。我们针对刺激-反应学习、强化学习工作记忆任务的表现建立了四种ACT-R模型。该任务由短的 3 个图像和长的 6 个图像组成,以反馈为基础。学习后进行无反馈测试,在学习和测试之间插入干扰任务。我们的四个模型包括两个单一机制的 RL 和 LTM 模型,以及两个综合的 RL-LTM 模型:(a)基于 RL 的元学习,即根据最近的成功案例选择 RL 或 LTM 进行学习;(b)参数化的 RL-LTM 选择模型,其固定比例与学习成功与否无关。对于我们的学习者中的一部分人来说,每种模型都是最合适的(LTM:68.7%,RL:4.8%,Meta-RL:13.25%,bias-RL:13.25%),这表明个体部署基本学习机制的方式存在根本差异,即使对于简单的刺激-反应任务也是如此。最后,无论图块长度如何(3 个图块与 6 个图块),长期陈述性记忆似乎都是这项任务的首选学习策略,这一点可以从大量受试者的学习特征被仅有的 LTM 模型所最好地捕捉到,以及由于我们的成因分析方法的优势,在我们的两个综合模型中,LTM 比 RL 更受青睐这两点得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
One Size Does Not Fit All: Idiographic Computational Models Reveal Individual Differences in Learning and Meta‐Learning Strategies
Complex skill learning depends on the joint contribution of multiple interacting systems: working memory (WM), declarative long‐term memory (LTM) and reinforcement learning (RL). The present study aims to understand individual differences in the relative contributions of these systems during learning. We built four idiographic, ACT‐R models of performance on the stimulus‐response learning, Reinforcement Learning Working Memory task. The task consisted of short 3‐image, and long 6‐image, feedback‐based learning blocks. A no‐feedback test phase was administered after learning, with an interfering task inserted between learning and test. Our four models included two single‐mechanism RL and LTM models, and two integrated RL‐LTM models: (a) RL‐based meta‐learning, which selects RL or LTM to learn based on recent success, and (b) a parameterized RL‐LTM selection model at fixed proportions independent of learning success. Each model was the best fit for some proportion of our learners (LTM: 68.7%, RL: 4.8%, Meta‐RL: 13.25%, bias‐RL:13.25% of participants), suggesting fundamental differences in the way individuals deploy basic learning mechanisms, even for a simple stimulus‐response task. Finally, long‐term declarative memory seems to be the preferred learning strategy for this task regardless of block length (3‐ vs 6‐image blocks), as determined by the large number of subjects whose learning characteristics were best captured by the LTM only model, and a preference for LTM over RL in both of our integrated‐models, owing to the strength of our idiographic approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
期刊最新文献
Play in Cognitive Development: From Rational Constructivism to Predictive Processing. Validating Silent Gesture Lab Studies in a Naturally Emerging Sign Language: How Order is Used to Describe Intensional Versus Extensional Events in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Independent Effects of Age, Education, Verbal Working Memory, Motor Speed of Processing, Locality, and Morphosyntactic Category on Verb-Related Morphosyntactic Production: Evidence From Healthy Aging. Predicting Learning: Understanding the Role of Executive Functions in Children's Belief Revision Using Bayesian Models. Comprehension of English for-adverbials: The Nature of Lexical Meanings and the Neurocognitive Architecture of Language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1