Cited by 642Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Neural computations underlying arbitration between model-based and model-free learning

Open access
Lee, Sang Wan, Shimojo, Shinsuke, O’Doherty, John P.·2014·Neuron

Abstract

There is accumulating neural evidence to support the existence of two distinct systems for guiding action selection, a deliberative "model-based" and a reflexive "model-free" system. However, little is known about how the brain determines which of these systems controls behavior at one moment in time. We provide evidence for an arbitration mechanism that allocates the degree of control over behavior by model-based and model-free systems as a function of the reliability of their respective predictions. We show that the inferior lateral prefrontal and frontopolar cortex encode both reliability signals and the output of a comparison between those signals, implicating these regions in the arbitration process. Moreover, connectivity between these regions and model-free valuation areas is negatively modulated by the degree of model-based control in the arbitrator, suggesting that arbitration may work through modulation of the model-free valuation system when the arbitrator deems that the model-based system should drive behavior.

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.neuron.2013.11.028

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • Subsequent investigations favor a more dynamic integration in which both systems contribute to the computation of action values according to their relative reliabilities.

    “However, subsequent investigations favor a more dynamic integration in which both systems contribute to the computation of action values according to their relative reliabilities (Lee et al. 2014).”

    From Psychology of Habit. (2016) · cites this paper as Lee et al. 2014

  • Recent behavioural and neural evidence supports the idea that at any given moment action selection results from a mixture of goal-directed and habitual control, rather than being under the exclusive control of either system.

    “Consistent with this view, recent behavioural and neural evidence supports the idea that at any given moment action selection results from a mixture of goal-directed and habitual control, rather than being under the exclusive control of either of the two systems (Daw et al., 2011, Lee et al., 2014, Otto et al., 2013).”

    From Active Inference, homeostatic regulation and adaptive behavioural control (2015) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2014

  • The results may also be consistent with models that combine contributions of different learning systems.

    “Our model proposes one learning system with variable learning rates, but these results may also be consistent with models that combine contributions of different learning systems.73–75”

    From Serotonin neurons modulate learning rate through uncertainty (2022) · cites this paper as [74]

  • The arbitrator selects between model-based and model-free systems according to criteria such as accuracy or prediction error or prevailing rate of reinforcement.

    “Given the tradeoff, the arbitrator selects between the two systems according to various criteria, such as the accuracy or prediction error connected with each (Daw et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2014) or the prevailing rate of reinforcement (Dezfouli et al., 2014).”
  • Reinforcement learning approaches have often accepted the coexistence of action and habit systems and allowed one or the other to be selected by a hypothetical arbitrator for behavioral control.

    “Approaches to action and habit in the reinforcement learning tradition (e.g., Sutton & Barto, 1998) have also often accepted the coexistence of action and habit systems and allowed one or the other to be selected by a hypothetical “arbitrator” for behavioral control (e.g.,Daw et al., 2005 ; Lee et al., 2014).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, S. W., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Sang Wan
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
81
Issue
3
Pages
687-699
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129299900
Cited by
642
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 14
FWCI
29.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (DA033077-01)
  • OppNet
  • Gordon and Betty foundation
  • JST-CREST
  • Caltech-Tamagawa gCOE
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
model-based learning, model-free learning, arbitration mechanism, forecast reliability, action selection, frontopolar cortex, neural control of behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Female, Goals, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Oxygen, Psychophysics, Young Adult

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