Cited by 97Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The Tortoise and the Hare: Interactions between Reinforcement Learning and Working Memory

Open access
Collins, Anne G. E.·2018·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Learning to make rewarding choices in response to stimuli depends on a slow but steady process, reinforcement learning, and a fast and flexible, but capacity-limited process, working memory. Using both systems in parallel, with their contributions weighted based on performance, should allow us to leverage the best of each system: rapid early learning, supplemented by long-term robust acquisition. However, this assumes that using one process does not interfere with the other. We use computational modeling to investigate the interactions between the two processes in a behavioral experiment and show that working memory interferes with reinforcement learning. Previous research showed that neural representations of reward prediction errors, a key marker of reinforcement learning, were blunted when working memory was used for learning. We thus predicted that arbitrating in favor of working memory to learn faster in simple problems would weaken the reinforcement learning process. We tested this by measuring performance in a delayed testing phase where the use of working memory was impossible, and thus participant choices depended on reinforcement learning. Counterintuitively, but confirming our predictions, we observed that associations learned most easily were retained worse than associations learned slower: Using working memory to learn quickly came at the cost of long-term retention. Computational modeling confirmed that this could only be accounted for by working memory interference in reinforcement learning computations. These results further our understanding of how multiple systems contribute in parallel to human learning and may have important applications for education and computational psychiatry.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_01238

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Higher perceptual rating in the current trial was associated with higher expectation rating in the next trial with a different cue type.

    “Interestingly, higher perceptual rating in the current trial was associated with higher expectation rating in the next trial with a different cue type (SI Appendix, Figs. S8–S10) which suggests: 1) the existence of a carryover effect (61–63) from the previous to the current trial independent of the cue, or 2) a general learning of stimulus history.”

    From Social information creates self-fulfilling prophecies in judgments of pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Results and Learning phase passages examine how previous correct choices for a given stimulus predict later action choices. Our copy does not report perceptual or expectation ratings, or an association between ratings on successive trials with different cue types (searched: perceptual rating, expectation rating, and cue-independent carryover). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Google eBook). Springer. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/group/7954/article/4425594

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collins, A. G. E.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Collins, Anne G. E.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018-10
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
1422-1432
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2781809075
Cited by
97
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
Brown University
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
reinforcement learning, working memory, working memory interference, reward prediction error, associative learning, long-term retention, learning speed, computational models of learning, computational psychiatry
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Association Learning, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Reinforcement, Psychology, 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