Cited by 111Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Generalization of value in reinforcement learning by humans

Open access
Wimmer, G. Elliott, Daw, Nathaniel D., Shohamy, Daphna·2012·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Research in decision‐making has focused on the role of dopamine and its striatal targets in guiding choices via learned stimulus–reward or stimulus–response associations, behavior that is well described by reinforcement learning theories. However, basic reinforcement learning is relatively limited in scope and does not explain how learning about stimulus regularities or relations may guide decision‐making. A candidate mechanism for this type of learning comes from the domain of memory, which has highlighted a role for the hippocampus in learning of stimulus–stimulus relations, typically dissociated from the role of the striatum in stimulus–response learning. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging and computational model‐based analyses to examine the joint contributions of these mechanisms to reinforcement learning. Humans performed a reinforcement learning task with added relational structure, modeled after tasks used to isolate hippocampal contributions to memory. On each trial participants chose one of four options, but the reward probabilities for pairs of options were correlated across trials. This (uninstructed) relationship between pairs of options potentially enabled an observer to learn about option values based on experience with the other options and to generalize across them. We observed blood oxygen level‐dependent (BOLD) activity related to learning in the striatum and also in the hippocampus. By comparing a basic reinforcement learning model to one augmented to allow feedback to generalize between correlated options, we tested whether choice behavior and BOLD activity were influenced by the opportunity to generalize across correlated options. Although such generalization goes beyond standard computational accounts of reinforcement learning and striatal BOLD, both choices and striatal BOLD activity were better explained by the augmented model. Consistent with the hypothesized role for the hippocampus in this generalization, functional connectivity between the ventral striatum and hippocampus was modulated, across participants, by the ability of the augmented model to capture participants’ choice. Our results thus point toward an interactive model in which striatal reinforcement learning systems may employ relational representations typically associated with the hippocampus.

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.1460-9568.2012.08017.x

Cites

107 of 107 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?

  • In reanalysis of a monetary reward experiment, ventral striatum tracked appetitive prediction errors to monetary rewards (t(20)=5.77, p<0.001).

    “As expected, in contradistinction to the main study, appetitive PEs to monetary rewards were tracked by activity in the VS. (t(20) = 5.77, p < 0.001), but not the PAG (PAG–appetitive: t(20) = 1.54, p = 0.14; see Supplementary Fig. 2).”
  • In that reanalysis, periaqueductal gray did not track appetitive prediction errors to monetary rewards (t(20)=1.54, p=0.14).

    “As expected, in contradistinction to the main study, appetitive PEs to monetary rewards were tracked by activity in the VS. (t(20) = 5.77, p < 0.001), but not the PAG (PAG–appetitive: t(20) = 1.54, p = 0.14; see Supplementary Fig. 2).”

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. Balleine B Daw N O'Doherty JP Multiple forms of value learning and the function of dopamine 2008 Elsevier
  2. Eichenbaum H Cohen NJ From Conditioning to Conscious Recollection: Memory Systems of the Brain 2001 New York Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wimmer, G. E., Daw, N. D., & Shohamy, D.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • New York University (US)
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04
Volume
35
Issue
7
Pages
1092-1104
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W1535087671
Cited by
111
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r03da026957-01)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R03-DA026957)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS078784)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
reinforcement learning, hippocampus, ventral striatum, relational learning, functional connectivity, computational modeling, choice behavior, reward probability, dopamine
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Basal Ganglia, Female, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Learning, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, 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