Cited by 163Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesReinforcement Learning in RoboticsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The Mixed Instrumental Controller: Using Value of Information to Combine Habitual Choice and Mental Simulation

Open access
Pezzulo, Giovanni, Rigoli, Francesco, Chersi, Fabian·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Instrumental behavior depends on both goal-directed and habitual mechanisms of choice. Normative views cast these mechanisms in terms of model-free and model-based methods of reinforcement learning, respectively. An influential proposal hypothesizes that model-free and model-based mechanisms coexist and compete in the brain according to their relative uncertainty. In this paper we propose a novel view in which a single Mixed Instrumental Controller produces both goal-directed and habitual behavior by flexibly balancing and combining model-based and model-free computations. The Mixed Instrumental Controller performs a cost-benefits analysis to decide whether to chose an action immediately based on the available "cached" value of actions (linked to model-free mechanisms) or to improve value estimation by mentally simulating the expected outcome values (linked to model-based mechanisms). Since mental simulation entails cognitive effort and increases the reward delay, it is activated only when the associated "Value of Information" exceeds its costs. The model proposes a method to compute the Value of Information, based on the uncertainty of action values and on the distance of alternative cached action values. Overall, the model by default chooses on the basis of lighter model-free estimates, and integrates them with costly model-based predictions only when useful. Mental simulation uses a sampling method to produce reward expectancies, which are used to update the cached value of one or more actions; in turn, this updated value is used for the choice. The key predictions of the model are tested in different settings of a double T-maze scenario. Results are discussed in relation with neurobiological evidence on the hippocampus - ventral striatum circuit in rodents, which has been linked to goal-directed spatial navigation.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00092

Cites

117 of 120 references verified3 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?

  • Within this scheme, the balance between goal-directed and habitual components of behaviour can be found in a principled way based on considerations of model accuracy vs. complexity.

    “Within this scheme, the balance between goal-directed and habitual components of behaviour can be found in a principled way based on considerations of model model “accuracy” vs. “complexity”; see above and (FitzGerald et al., 2014, Pezzulo et al., 2013).”

    From Active Inference, homeostatic regulation and adaptive behavioural control (2015) · cites this paper as Pezzulo et al., 2013

    The General Discussion describes an approximate way to balance habitual choice and mental simulation by weighing accuracy of choice against the cognitive effort and time needed to acquire more information. This supports the claimed trade-off, but the paper does not frame it specifically as model accuracy versus model complexity. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some computational models have adapted a more default interventionist approach in which planning intervenes to alter habits only when necessary.

    “More recently, some computational models have adapted a more default interventionist approach in which planning intervenes to alter habits only when necessary (e.g., Pezzulo et al. 2013).”

    From Psychology of Habit. (2016) · cites this paper as Pezzulo et al. 2013

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
Pezzulo, G., Rigoli, F., & Chersi, F.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Computational Linguistics “A. Zampolli” (IT)
  • National Research Council (IT)
Corresponding author
Pezzulo, Giovanni
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
92-92
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128349062
Cited by
163
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Commission (270108)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
value of information, model-free reinforcement learning, model-based reinforcement learning, goal-directed behavior, habitual behavior, mental simulation, cost-benefit decision making, reward expectancy, spatial navigation

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