ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Inferring learning rules during de novo task learning.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying the learning rules that govern behavior is a central problem in neuroscience. While reinforcement learning (RL) offers a unifying theoretical framework, most empirical studies of animal learning behavior have focused on non-stationary environments (e.g. changing reward probabilities in a known task), as opposed to acquiring an entirely new task from scratch. Here we introduce a statistical framework to infer reinforcement learning rules directly from single-animal behavior. Applied to mice learning a perceptual decision-making task, our approach reveals that policy-gradient-like rules capture de novo task learning better than classical temporal-difference algorithms. By fitting flexible parametric learning rules, we uncover systematic deviations from standard RL models, including side-specific learning rates and negative reward baselines. Together, these parameters account for side-biased learning, as well as forgetting and consecutive errors due to aversive responses to incorrect trials. Extending the framework with latent, dynamic learning rates further reveals that animals adapt their learning rates over training and across curricula. These results provide a statistical account of how animals learn from scratch and highlight key departures from classical reinforcement learning algorithms.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.