IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Task-Specific Response Strategy Selection on the Basis of Recent Training Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline M Fulvio
  • C Shawn Green
  • Paul R Schrater

Abstract

The goal of training is to produce learning for a range of activities that are typically more general than the training task itself. Despite a century of research, predicting the scope of learning from the content of training has proven extremely difficult, with the same task producing narrowly focused learning strategies in some cases and broadly scoped learning strategies in others. Here we test the hypothesis that human subjects will prefer a decision strategy that maximizes performance and reduces uncertainty given the demands of the training task and that the strategy chosen will then predict the extent to which learning is transferable. To test this hypothesis, we trained subjects on a moving dot extrapolation task that makes distinct predictions for two types of learning strategy: a narrow model-free strategy that learns an input-output mapping for training stimuli, and a general model-based strategy that utilizes humans' default predictive model for a class of trajectories. When the number of distinct training trajectories is low, we predict better performance for the mapping strategy, but as the number increases, a predictive model is increasingly favored. Consonant with predictions, subject extrapolations for test trajectories were consistent with using a mapping strategy when trained on a small number of training trajectories and a predictive model when trained on a larger number. The general framework developed here can thus be useful both in interpreting previous patterns of task-specific versus task-general learning, as well as in building future training paradigms with certain desired outcomes.Author Summary: Predicting what humans will learn from a training task, in particular, whether learning will generalize beyond the specifics of the given experience, is of both significant practical and theoretical interest. However, a principled understanding of the relationship between training conditions and learning generalization remains elusive. In this paper, we develop a computational framework for predicting which of two basic decision-making strategies will be utilized by human subjects - 1) simple stimulus-response mappings or 2) predictive models. Through simulation, we show that the nature of the training experience determines which of these categories leads to better in-task performance; repetitive training on a small set of examples favors simple stimulus-response mappings, whereas training on a large set of examples favors predictive strategies. We then show that humans trained under these various conditions do indeed utilize the predicted strategy. Finally, we show that the strategies that are utilized during training predict generalization of learning. Those who learn simple mappings fail to generalize their new skills, in contrast to those who use default predictive strategies. The framework developed here is useful both in interpreting previous patterns of learning, as well as in building training paradigms with given desired outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline M Fulvio & C Shawn Green & Paul R Schrater, 2014. "Task-Specific Response Strategy Selection on the Basis of Recent Training Experience," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003425
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003425
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003425&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003425?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konrad P Körding & Ulrik Beierholm & Wei Ji Ma & Steven Quartz & Joshua B Tenenbaum & Ladan Shams, 2007. "Causal Inference in Multisensory Perception," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(9), pages 1-10, September.
    2. Merav Ahissar & Shaul Hochstein, 1997. "Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 401-406, May.
    3. C. Shawn Green & Daphne Bavelier, 2003. "Action video game modifies visual selective attention," Nature, Nature, vol. 423(6939), pages 534-537, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefanie Duyck & Hans Op de Beeck, 2019. "An investigation of far and near transfer in a gamified visual learning paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Pierre Mégevand & Sophie Molholm & Ashabari Nayak & John J Foxe, 2013. "Recalibration of the Multisensory Temporal Window of Integration Results from Changing Task Demands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    3. Katharine Molloy & David R Moore & Ediz Sohoglu & Sygal Amitay, 2012. "Less Is More: Latent Learning Is Maximized by Shorter Training Sessions in Auditory Perceptual Learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-13, May.
    4. Amy A Kalia & Paul R Schrater & Gordon E Legge, 2013. "Combining Path Integration and Remembered Landmarks When Navigating without Vision," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-8, September.
    5. Dimitrije Marković & Jan Gläscher & Peter Bossaerts & John O’Doherty & Stefan J Kiebel, 2015. "Modeling the Evolution of Beliefs Using an Attentional Focus Mechanism," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-34, October.
    6. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    7. Patricia Besson & Christophe Bourdin & Lionel Bringoux, 2011. "A Comprehensive Model of Audiovisual Perception: Both Percept and Temporal Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-11, August.
    8. Brian D Glass & W Todd Maddox & Bradley C Love, 2013. "Real-Time Strategy Game Training: Emergence of a Cognitive Flexibility Trait," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-7, August.
    9. Aaron V Berard & Matthew S Cain & Takeo Watanabe & Yuka Sasaki, 2015. "Frequent Video Game Players Resist Perceptual Interference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Wendy J Adams, 2016. "The Development of Audio-Visual Integration for Temporal Judgements," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Stephanie Carlson & Yuichi Shoda & Ozlem Ayduk & Lawrence Aber & Catherine Schaefer & Anita Sethi & Nicole Wilson & Philip Peake & Walter Mischel, 2017. "Cohort Effects in Children's Delay-of-Gratification," Working Papers 2017-077, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    12. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    13. Aleksandar Klasnja & Natasa Milenovic & Sonja Lukac & Aleksandar Knezevic & Jelena Klasnja & Vedrana Karan Rakic, 2022. "The Effects of Regular Physical Activity and Playing Video Games on Reaction Time in Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-7, July.
    14. Susana T L Chung & Roger W Li & Dennis M Levi, 2012. "Learning to Identify Near-Acuity Letters, either with or without Flankers, Results in Improved Letter Size and Spacing Limits in Adults with Amblyopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-11, April.
    15. Bonny, Justin W. & Scanlon, Mike & Castaneda, Lisa M., 2020. "Variations in psychological factors and experience-dependent changes in team-based video game performance," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Max Berniker & Martin Voss & Konrad Kording, 2010. "Learning Priors for Bayesian Computations in the Nervous System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-9, September.
    17. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.
    18. Charlotte Willems & Johannes Herdzin & Sander Martens, 2015. "Individual Differences in Temporal Selective Attention as Reflected in Pupil Dilation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Guido Marco Cicchini & Giovanni D’Errico & David Charles Burr, 2022. "Crowding results from optimal integration of visual targets with contextual information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Mirza Rayana Sanzana & Mostafa Osama Mostafa Abdulrazic & Jing Ying Wong & Chun-Chieh Yip, 2024. "Personnel Training for Common Facility Management Issues in Thermal-Energy-Storage Chiller Plant using a Serious 3D Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 55(2), pages 224-248, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.