Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis

Open access
Collins, Anne G. E., Frank, Michael J.·2012·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Instrumental learning involves corticostriatal circuitry and the dopaminergic system. This system is typically modeled in the reinforcement learning (RL) framework by incrementally accumulating reward values of states and actions. However, human learning also implicates prefrontal cortical mechanisms involved in higher level cognitive functions. The interaction of these systems remains poorly understood, and models of human behavior often ignore working memory (WM) and therefore incorrectly assign behavioral variance to the RL system. Here we designed a task that highlights the profound entanglement of these two processes, even in simple learning problems. By systematically varying the size of the learning problem and delay between stimulus repetitions, we separately extracted WM‐specific effects of load and delay on learning. We propose a new computational model that accounts for the dynamic integration of RL and WM processes observed in subjects’ behavior. Incorporating capacity‐limited WM into the model allowed us to capture behavioral variance that could not be captured in a pure RL framework even if we (implausibly) allowed separate RL systems for each set size. The WM component also allowed for a more reasonable estimation of a single RL process. Finally, we report effects of two genetic polymorphisms having relative specificity for prefrontal and basal ganglia functions. Whereas the COMT gene coding for catechol‐O‐methyl transferase selectively influenced model estimates of WM capacity, the GPR6 gene coding for G‐protein‐coupled receptor 6 influenced the RL learning rate. Thus, this study allowed us to specify distinct influences of the high‐level and low‐level cognitive functions on instrumental learning, beyond the possibilities offered by simple RL models.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07980.x

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

See all 417

Metadata

Authors
Collins, A. G. E., & Frank, M. J.
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04
Volume
35
Issue
7
Pages
1024-1035
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W2111971565
Cited by
417
References
70
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07980.x
The paper
Collins, A. G. E., & Frank, M. J. (2012). How much of reinforcement learning is working memory, not reinforcement learning? A behavioral, computational, and neurogenetic analysis. European Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07980.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.