Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33229541›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020

A general model of hippocampal and dorsal striatal learning and decision making.

Jesse P Geerts, Fabian Chersi, Kimberly L Stachenfeld, Neil Burgess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jesse P GeertsSainsbury Wellcome Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, University College London, London W1T 4JG, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2960-5727
Fabian ChersiInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1257-2607
Kimberly L StachenfeldDeepMind, London N1C 4AG, United Kingdom.
Neil BurgessInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, United Kingdom; n.burgess@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0646-6584

Funding

Wellcome Trust 202805/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans and other animals use multiple strategies for making decisions. Reinforcement-learning theory distinguishes between stimulus-response (model-free; MF) learning and deliberative (model-based; MB) planning. The spatial-navigation literature presents a parallel dichotomy between navigation strategies. In "response learning," associated with the dorsolateral striatum (DLS), decisions are anchored to an egocentric reference frame. In "place learning," associated with the hippocampus, decisions are anchored to an allocentric reference frame. Emerging evidence suggests that the contribution of hippocampus to place learning may also underlie its contribution to MB learning by representing relational structure in a cognitive map. Here, we introduce a computational model in which hippocampus subserves place and MB learning by learning a "successor representation" of relational structure between states; DLS implements model-free response learning by learning associations between actions and egocentric representations of landmarks; and action values from either system are weighted by the reliability of its predictions. We show that this model reproduces a range of seemingly disparate behavioral findings in spatial and nonspatial decision tasks and explains the effects of lesions to DLS and hippocampus on these tasks. Furthermore, modeling place cells as driven by boundaries explains the observation that, unlike navigation guided by landmarks, navigation guided by boundaries is robust to "blocking" by prior state-reward associations due to learned associations between place cells. Our model, originally shaped by detailed constraints in the spatial literature, successfully characterizes the hippocampal-striatal system as a general system for decision making via adaptive combination of stimulus-response learning and the use of a cognitive map.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningModels, NeurologicalAdaptation, PhysiologicalComputer SimulationCorpus StriatumHippocampusMaze LearningSpatial MemoryTask Performance and Analysishippocampusreinforcement learningspatial navigationstriatum

Identifiers

PMID33229541
PMCPMC7733794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.