Cited by 380Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorReinforcement Learning in Robotics

The ubiquity of model-based reinforcement learning

Open access
Doll, Bradley B, Simon, Dylan A, Daw, Nathaniel D·2012·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

The reward prediction error (RPE) theory of dopamine (DA) function has enjoyed great success in the neuroscience of learning and decision-making. This theory is derived from model-free reinforcement learning (RL), in which choices are made simply on the basis of previously realized rewards. Recently, attention has turned to correlates of more flexible, albeit computationally complex, model-based methods in the brain. These methods are distinguished from model-free learning by their evaluation of candidate actions using expected future outcomes according to a world model. Puzzlingly, signatures from these computations seem to be pervasive in the very same regions previously thought to support model-free learning. Here, we review recent behavioral and neural evidence about these two systems, in attempt to reconcile their enigmatic cohabitation in the brain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.conb.2012.08.003

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • From an RL perspective, stress shifts the balance toward habits over lengthy planning by increasing experienced time pressure.

    “From an RL perspective, stress shifts the balance toward habits over lengthy planning by increasing experienced time pressure (Doll et al. 2012).”

    From Psychology of Habit. (2016) · cites this paper as Doll et al. 2012

    In “From goals and habits...” (page unavailable), the paper says the time cost of model-based evaluation may explain why chronic stress in rats and acute stress in humans shift behavior toward habits. It does not say that stress increases experienced time pressure, and it presents the time-cost explanation as a possibility rather than an established mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Given the profusion of direct and indirect connections between neural circuits underlying goal-directed and habitual behaviors, goals can have a biasing influence on habit formation.

    “Given the profusion of direct and indirect connections between neural circuits underlying goal-directed and habitual (model-free) behaviors, goals can have a biasing influence on habit formation (Doll et al. 2012).”

    From Psychology of Habit. (2016) · cites this paper as Doll et al. 2012

    In “The way forward” (page unavailable), the paper describes a proposal that explicit representations can directly bias a model-free learner, supporting the possibility that goals influence habit learning. It does not establish the claimed profusion of direct and indirect connections between the neural circuits as the reason for that influence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [41]Bromberg-Martin ES Matsumoto M Hong S Hikosaka O A pallidushabenula-dopamine pathway signals inferred stimulus values J Neurophysiol 2010 104 2 1068 1076 20538770 PMC2934919

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doll, B. B., Simon, D. A., & Daw, N. D.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Daw, Nathaniel D
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
1075-1081
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977114987
Cited by
380
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 13
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • McKnight Foundation
  • McDonnell Foundation
  • NIMH (1R01MH087882-01)
  • NINDS (1R01NS078784-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
model-based reinforcement learning, model-free reinforcement learning, reward prediction error, dopamine, decision-making, world models, neural correlates of learning, computational psychiatry
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Neurological, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review