Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978035›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A comparison of reinforcement learning models of human spatial navigation.

Qiliang He, Jancy Ling Liu, Lou Eschapasse, Elizabeth H Beveridge, Thackery I Brown

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qiliang HeSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. duncan.heqiliang@gmail.com.
Jancy Ling LiuSchool of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
Lou EschapasseSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
Elizabeth H BeveridgeSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
Thackery I BrownSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. thackery.brown@psych.gatech.edu.
Georgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Neurobiological mechanisms of aging and stress on prospective navigationR21AG063131 · NIA · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BROWN, THACKERY IAN · 2019 to 2020
$426k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG063131NIH HHS 1-R21AG063131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) models have been influential in characterizing human learning and decision making, but few studies apply them to characterizing human spatial navigation and even fewer systematically compare RL models under different navigation requirements. Because RL can characterize one's learning strategies quantitatively and in a continuous manner, and one's consistency of using such strategies, it can provide a novel and important perspective for understanding the marked individual differences in human navigation and disentangle navigation strategies from navigation performance. One-hundred and fourteen participants completed wayfinding tasks in a virtual environment where different phases manipulated navigation requirements. We compared performance of five RL models (3 model-free, 1 model-based and 1 "hybrid") at fitting navigation behaviors in different phases. Supporting implications from prior literature, the hybrid model provided the best fit regardless of navigation requirements, suggesting the majority of participants rely on a blend of model-free (route-following) and model-based (cognitive mapping) learning in such navigation scenarios. Furthermore, consistent with a key prediction, there was a correlation in the hybrid model between the weight on model-based learning (i.e., navigation strategy) and the navigator's exploration vs. exploitation tendency (i.e., consistency of using such navigation strategy), which was modulated by navigation task requirements. Together, we not only show how computational findings from RL align with the spatial navigation literature, but also reveal how the relationship between navigation strategy and a person's consistency using such strategies changes as navigation requirements change.

Indexed as

Spatial NavigationHumansIndividualityLearningReinforcement, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID35978035
PMCPMC9385652
OpenAlexW4292230234

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.