↓ Skip to main content

Processing speed enhances model-based over model-free reinforcement learning in the presence of high working memory functioning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Processing speed enhances model-based over model-free reinforcement learning in the presence of high working memory functioning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01450
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Schad, Elisabeth Jünger, Miriam Sebold, Maria Garbusow, Nadine Bernhardt, Amir-Homayoun Javadi, Ulrich S. Zimmermann, Michael N. Smolka, Andreas Heinz, Michael A. Rapp, Quentin J. M. Huys

Abstract

Theories of decision-making and its neural substrates have long assumed the existence of two distinct and competing valuation systems, variously described as goal-directed vs. habitual, or, more recently and based on statistical arguments, as model-free vs. model-based reinforcement-learning. Though both have been shown to control choices, the cognitive abilities associated with these systems are under ongoing investigation. Here we examine the link to cognitive abilities, and find that individual differences in processing speed covary with a shift from model-free to model-based choice control in the presence of above-average working memory function. This suggests shared cognitive and neural processes; provides a bridge between literatures on intelligence and valuation; and may guide the development of process models of different valuation components. Furthermore, it provides a rationale for individual differences in the tendency to deploy valuation systems, which may be important for understanding the manifold neuropsychiatric diseases associated with malfunctions of valuation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 126 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 21%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 36%
Neuroscience 26 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 31 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,725,785
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,591
of 29,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,427
of 331,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#191
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.