IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential exploration in the Iowa gambling task: Validation of a new computational model in a large dataset of young and old healthy participants

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Ligneul

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is one of the most common paradigms used to assess decision-making and executive functioning in neurological and psychiatric disorders. Several reinforcement-learning (RL) models were recently proposed to refine the qualitative and quantitative inferences that can be made about these processes based on IGT data. Yet, these models do not account for the complex exploratory patterns which characterize participants’ behavior in the task. Using a dataset of more than 500 subjects, we demonstrate the existence of sequential exploration in the IGT and we describe a new computational architecture disentangling exploitation, random exploration and sequential exploration in this large population of participants. The new Value plus Sequential Exploration (VSE) architecture provided a better fit than previous models. Parameter recovery, model recovery and simulation analyses confirmed the superiority of the VSE scheme. Furthermore, using the VSE model, we confirmed the existence of a significant reduction in directed exploration across lifespan in the IGT, as previously reported with other paradigms. Finally, we provide a user-friendly toolbox enabling researchers to easily and flexibly fit computational models on the IGT data, hence promoting reanalysis of the numerous datasets acquired in various populations of patients and contributing to the development of computational psychiatry.Author summary: The ability to perform decisions and learn from their outcomes is a fundamental function of the central nervous system. In order to maintain their homeostasis and maximize their biological fitness, organisms must maximize rewards and minimize punishments. Yet, pure exploitation often leads to suboptimal solutions. In order to discover the best course of action, organisms must also explore their environment, especially when this environment is complex or volatile. Here, we dissected exploratory strategies in one of the most classic decision-making paradigms of cognitive neuroscience. First, we found that humans tend to sample sequentially the space of possible actions. Second, we developed a new mathematical model better able to predict trial-by-trial choices, by articulating this sequential exploration mechanism with random exploration and exploitation. Third, we showed that sequential exploration reduces across lifespan, a result which might be explained by specific neuroanatomical or neurochemical changes associated with normal aging. Together, these findings may contribute to a better understanding of exploratory behaviors and a better assessment of their disruption in a wide range of neuropsychiatric conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Ligneul, 2019. "Sequential exploration in the Iowa gambling task: Validation of a new computational model in a large dataset of young and old healthy participants," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006989
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006989
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006989&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006989?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. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    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. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    2. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    3. Sashittal, Hemant C. & Sriramachandramurthy, Rajendran & Hodis, Monica, 2012. "Targeting college students on Facebook? How to stop wasting your money," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 495-507.
    4. Peter S. Riefer & Bradley C. Love, 2015. "Unfazed by Both the Bull and Bear: Strategic Exploration in Dynamic Environments," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-11, August.
    5. Makoto Naruse & Eiji Yamamoto & Takashi Nakao & Takuma Akimoto & Hayato Saigo & Kazuya Okamura & Izumi Ojima & Georg Northoff & Hirokazu Hori, 2018. "Why is the environment important for decision making? Local reservoir model for choice-based learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Christina Fang & Daniel Levinthal, 2009. "Near-Term Liability of Exploitation: Exploration and Exploitation in Multistage Problems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 538-551, June.
    7. Hu, Yingyao & Kayaba, Yutaka & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "Nonparametric learning rules from bandit experiments: The eyes have it!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 215-231.
    8. Jean Daunizeau & Hanneke E M den Ouden & Matthias Pessiglione & Stefan J Kiebel & Klaas E Stephan & Karl J Friston, 2010. "Observing the Observer (I): Meta-Bayesian Models of Learning and Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Elyse H Norton & Stephen M Fleming & Nathaniel D Daw & Michael S Landy, 2017. "Suboptimal Criterion Learning in Static and Dynamic Environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, January.
    10. Ayaka Kato & Kenji Morita, 2016. "Forgetting in Reinforcement Learning Links Sustained Dopamine Signals to Motivation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-41, October.
    11. Elise Payzan-LeNestour & Peter Bossaerts, 2011. "Risk, Unexpected Uncertainty, and Estimation Uncertainty: Bayesian Learning in Unstable Settings," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Pérez-Centeno, Victor, 2018. "Brain-driven entrepreneurship research: Expanded review and research agenda towards entrepreneurial enhancement," Working Papers 02/18, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    13. Oded Berger-Tal & Jonathan Nathan & Ehud Meron & David Saltz, 2014. "The Exploration-Exploitation Dilemma: A Multidisciplinary Framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-8, April.
    14. Ian Krajbich & Todd Hare & Björn Bartling & Yosuke Morishima & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "A Common Mechanism Underlying Food Choice and Social Decisions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Maime Guan & Ryan Stokes & Joachim Vandekerckhove & Michael D. Lee, 2020. "A cognitive modeling analysis of risk in sequential choice tasks}," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 823-850, September.
    16. Kiyohito Iigaya & Sanghyun Yi & Iman A. Wahle & Sandy Tanwisuth & Logan Cross & John P. O’Doherty, 2023. "Neural mechanisms underlying the hierarchical construction of perceived aesthetic value," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Matthew R Nassar & Joshua I Gold, 2013. "A Healthy Fear of the Unknown: Perspectives on the Interpretation of Parameter Fits from Computational Models in Neuroscience," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-6, April.
    18. Georgy Antonov & Peter Dayan, 2025. "Exploring replay," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Maël Lebreton & Karin Bacily & Stefano Palminteri & Jan B Engelmann, 2019. "Contextual influence on confidence judgments in human reinforcement learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, April.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:691-719 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Ahmed H. Alsharif & Nor Zafir Md Salleh & Rohaizat Baharun & Alharthi Rami Hashem E & Aida Azlina Mansor & Javed Ali & Alhamzah F. Abbas, 2021. "Neuroimaging Techniques in Advertising Research: Main Applications, Development, and Brain Regions and Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.

    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:pcbi00:1006989. 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.