↓ Skip to main content

Neural Network Models of Learning and Categorization in Multigame Experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Neural Network Models of Learning and Categorization in Multigame Experiments
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2011.00139
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Marchiori, Massimo Warglien

Abstract

Previous research has shown that regret-driven neural networks predict behavior in repeated completely mixed games remarkably well, substantially equating the performance of the most accurate established models of learning. This result prompts the question of what is the added value of modeling learning through neural networks. We submit that this modeling approach allows for models that are able to distinguish among and respond differently to different payoff structures. Moreover, the process of categorization of a game is implicitly carried out by these models, thus without the need of any external explicit theory of similarity between games. To validate our claims, we designed and ran two multigame experiments in which subjects faced, in random sequence, different instances of two completely mixed 2 × 2 games. Then, we tested on our experimental data two regret-driven neural network models, and compared their performance with that of other established models of learning and Nash equilibrium.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 7%
Switzerland 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
India 1 4%
Italy 1 4%
Unknown 22 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Professor 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 6 21%
Psychology 5 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,342,333
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,793
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,559
of 190,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#29
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 190,474 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.