Cited by 357Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Model-based and model-free Pavlovian reward learning: Revaluation, revision, and revelation

Open access
Dayan, Peter, Berridge, Kent C.·2014·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Evidence supports at least two methods for learning about reward and punishment and making predictions for guiding actions. One method, called model-free, progressively acquires cached estimates of the long-run values of circumstances and actions from retrospective experience. The other method, called model-based, uses representations of the environment, expectations, and prospective calculations to make cognitive predictions of future value. Extensive attention has been paid to both methods in computational analyses of instrumental learning. By contrast, although a full computational analysis has been lacking, Pavlovian learning and prediction has typically been presumed to be solely model-free. Here, we revise that presumption and review compelling evidence from Pavlovian revaluation experiments showing that Pavlovian predictions can involve their own form of model-based evaluation. In model-based Pavlovian evaluation, prevailing states of the body and brain influence value computations, and thereby produce powerful incentive motivations that can sometimes be quite new. We consider the consequences of this revised Pavlovian view for the computational landscape of prediction, response, and choice. We also revisit differences between Pavlovian and instrumental learning in the control of incentive motivation.

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 · 10.3758/s13415-014-0277-8

Cites

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?

  • Pavlovian cue-triggered incentive salience can sometimes be smarter than a cognitive system.

    “In this way, Pavlovian cue-triggered incentive salience can sometimes be smarter than a cognitive system: a cognitive system needs to act upon past knowledge of goal values that it has gained from experience (Dayan and Berridge, 2014).”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Dayan and Berridge, 2014

  • Approach towards the reward location (goal tracking) suggests underlying model-based learning independent of incentive motivation.

    “In contrast, approach towards the reward location (goal tracking) suggests underlying model‐based learning independent of incentive motivation.59”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 190 · Cited by 357

Authors
Dayan, P., & Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dayan, Peter
  • Berridge, Kent C.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2014-03-20
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
473-492
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2169323873
Cited by
357
References
190
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-63649, R01MH063649)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA015188, R01DA015188)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
model-based learning, model-free learning, incentive motivation, value prediction, computational models of learning, reward and punishment
MeSH terms
Brain, Computer Simulation, Conditioning, Classical, Conditioning, Operant, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Psychological, Reward

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