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.

An organism's survival depends on its ability to learn about its environment and to make adaptive decisions in the service of achieving the best possible outcomes in that environment. To study the neural circuits that support these functions, researchers have increasingly relied on models that formalize the computations required to carry them out. Here, we review the recent history of computational modeling of learning and decision-making, and how these models have been used to advance understanding of prefrontal cortex function. We discuss how such models have advanced from their origins in basic algorithms of updating and action selection to increasingly account for complexities in the cognitive processes required for learning and decision-making, and the representations over which they operate. We further discuss how a deeper understanding of the real-world complexities in these computations has shed light on the fundamental constraints on optimal behavior, and on the complex interactions between corticostriatal pathways to determine such behavior. The continuing and rapid development of these models holds great promise for understanding the mechanisms by which animals adapt to their environments, and what leads to maladaptive forms of learning and decision-making within clinical populations.

Human learning is often motivated by self-imposed challenges, which guide behavior even in the absence of external rewards. Previous studies have shown that humans can use personal goals to "hack" the definition of reward, warranting an extension of the classic reinforcement learning framework to account for the flexible attribution of value to outcomes according to current goals. However, learning through goal-derived outcomes is less efficient than learning through more established reinforcers, such as numeric points. At least three possible explanations exist for this sort of impairment, or "bug". First, occasional lapses in executive function, which is required to encode and recognize goals, may result in subsequent failure to update values accordingly. Second, the higher working memory load required to encode novel stimuli as desirable outcomes may impair people's ability to update and remember correct stimulus-reward associations. Third, a weaker commitment to arbitrary goals may result in dimmer appetitive signals. By extending existing experimental paradigms that include learning from both familiar rewards and abstract, goal-contingent outcomes and combining them with computational modeling techniques, we find evidence for each of the proposed accounts. While other factors might also play a role in this process, our results provide an initial indication of the key elements supporting (or impairing) the attribution of rewarding properties to otherwise neutral stimuli, which enable humans to better pursue arbitrarily set goals.

Using Bayesian methods to apply computational models of cognitive processes, or Bayesian cognitive modeling, is an important new trend in psychological research. The rise of Bayesian cognitive modeling has been accelerated by the introduction of software that efficiently automates the Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling used for Bayesian model fitting-including the popular Stan and PyMC packages, which automate the dynamic Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and No-U-Turn Sampler (HMC/NUTS) algorithms that we spotlight here. Unfortunately, Bayesian cognitive models can struggle to pass the growing number of diagnostic checks required of Bayesian models. If any failures are left undetected, inferences about cognition based on the model's output may be biased or incorrect. As such, Bayesian cognitive models almost always require troubleshooting before being used for inference. Here, we present a deep treatment of the diagnostic checks and procedures that are critical for effective troubleshooting, but are often left underspecified by tutorial papers. After a conceptual introduction to Bayesian cognitive modeling and HMC/NUTS sampling, we outline the diagnostic metrics, procedures, and plots necessary to detect problems in model output with an emphasis on how these requirements have recently been changed and extended. Throughout, we explain how uncovering the exact nature of the problem is often the key to identifying solutions. We also demonstrate the troubleshooting process for an example hierarchical Bayesian model of reinforcement learning, including supplementary code. With this comprehensive guide to techniques for detecting, identifying, and overcoming problems in fitting Bayesian cognitive models, psychologists across subfields can more confidently build and use Bayesian cognitive models in their research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Humans use prior knowledge to efficiently solve novel tasks, but how they structure past knowledge during learning to enable such fast generalization is not well understood. We recently proposed that hierarchical state abstraction enabled generalization of simple one-step rules, by inferring context clusters for each rule. However, humans' daily tasks are often temporally extended, and necessitate more complex multi-step, hierarchically structured strategies. The options framework in hierarchical reinforcement learning provides a theoretical framework for representing such transferable strategies. Options are abstract multi-step policies, assembled from simpler one-step actions or other options, that can represent meaningful reusable strategies as temporal abstractions. We developed a novel sequential decision-making protocol to test if humans learn and transfer multi-step options. In a series of four experiments, we found transfer effects at multiple hierarchical levels of abstraction that could not be explained by flat reinforcement learning models or hierarchical models lacking temporal abstractions. We extended the options framework to develop a quantitative model that blends temporal and state abstractions. Our model captures the transfer effects observed in human participants. Our results provide evidence that humans create and compose hierarchical options, and use them to explore in novel contexts, consequently transferring past knowledge and speeding up learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a framework of particular importance to psychology, neuroscience and machine learning. Interactions between these fields, as promoted through the common hub of RL, has facilitated paradigm shifts that relate multiple levels of analysis in a singular framework (for example, relating dopamine function to a computationally defined RL signal). Recently, more sophisticated RL algorithms have been proposed to better account for human learning, and in particular its oft-documented reliance on two separable systems: a model-based (MB) system and a model-free (MF) system. However, along with many benefits, this dichotomous lens can distort questions, and may contribute to an unnecessarily narrow perspective on learning and decision-making. Here, we outline some of the consequences that come from overconfidently mapping algorithms, such as MB versus MF RL, with putative cognitive processes. We argue that the field is well positioned to move beyond simplistic dichotomies, and we propose a means of refocusing research questions towards the rich and complex components that comprise learning and decision-making.

Humans have the fascinating ability to achieve goals in a complex and constantly changing world, still surpassing modern machine-learning algorithms in terms of flexibility and learning speed. It is generally accepted that a crucial factor for this ability is the use of abstract, hierarchical representations, which employ structure in the environment to guide learning and decision making. Nevertheless, how we create and use these hierarchical representations is poorly understood. This study presents evidence that human behavior can be characterized as hierarchical reinforcement learning (RL). We designed an experiment to test specific predictions of hierarchical RL using a series of subtasks in the realm of context-based learning and observed several behavioral markers of hierarchical RL, such as asymmetric switch costs between changes in higher-level versus lower-level features, faster learning in higher-valued compared to lower-valued contexts, and preference for higher-valued compared to lower-valued contexts. We replicated these results across three independent samples. We simulated three models-a classic RL, a hierarchical RL, and a hierarchical Bayesian model-and compared their behavior to human results. While the flat RL model captured some aspects of participants' sensitivity to outcome values, and the hierarchical Bayesian model captured some markers of transfer, only hierarchical RL accounted for all patterns observed in human behavior. This work shows that hierarchical RL, a biologically inspired and computationally simple algorithm, can capture human behavior in complex, hierarchical environments and opens the avenue for future research in this field.

Computational modeling of behavior has revolutionized psychology and neuroscience. By fitting models to experimental data we can probe the algorithms underlying behavior, find neural correlates of computational variables and better understand the effects of drugs, illness and interventions. But with great power comes great responsibility. Here, we offer ten simple rules to ensure that computational modeling is used with care and yields meaningful insights. In particular, we present a beginner-friendly, pragmatic and details-oriented introduction on how to relate models to data. What, exactly, can a model tell us about the mind? To answer this, we apply our rules to the simplest modeling techniques most accessible to beginning modelers and illustrate them with examples and code available online. However, most rules apply to more advanced techniques. Our hope is that by following our guidelines, researchers will avoid many pitfalls and unleash the power of computational modeling on their own data.