Cited by 77Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Neural mechanism for stochastic behaviour during a competitive game

Open access
Soltani, Alireza, Lee, Daeyeol, Wang, Xiao-Jing·2006·Neural Networks

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that non-human primates can generate highly stochastic choice behaviour, especially when this is required during a competitive interaction with another agent. To understand the neural mechanism of such dynamic choice behaviour, we propose a biologically plausible model of decision making endowed with synaptic plasticity that follows a reward-dependent stochastic Hebbian learning rule. This model constitutes a biophysical implementation of reinforcement learning, and it reproduces salient features of behavioural data from an experiment with monkeys playing a matching pennies game. Due to interaction with an opponent and learning dynamics, the model generates quasi-random behaviour robustly in spite of intrinsic biases. Furthermore, non-random choice behaviour can also emerge when the model plays against a non-interactive opponent, as observed in the monkey experiment. Finally, when combined with a meta-learning algorithm, our model accounts for the slow drift in the animal's strategy based on a process of reward maximization.

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.neunet.2006.05.044

Cites

52 of 52 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?

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: 2

  1. Camerer CF. Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Stephens DW, Krebs JR. Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soltani, A., Lee, D., & Wang, X.-J.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Xiao-Jing
Venue
Neural Networks
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1075-1090
ISSN
0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030612334
Cited by
77
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neural Networks (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH073246, R01MH073246)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
stochastic choice, competitive games, matching pennies, decision-making, synaptic plasticity, reinforcement learning, non-human primates, meta-learning, reward maximization, neural models
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Haplorhini, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Competitive Behavior, Humans, Models, Neurological, Neural Inhibition, Neurons, Probability Learning, Reaction Time, Reinforcement, Psychology, Stochastic Processes, Likelihood Functions, Neural Networks, Computer

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