↓ Skip to main content

The Mixed Instrumental Controller: Using Value of Information to Combine Habitual Choice and Mental Simulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
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
The Mixed Instrumental Controller: Using Value of Information to Combine Habitual Choice and Mental Simulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Pezzulo, Francesco Rigoli, Fabian Chersi

Abstract

Instrumental behavior depends on both goal-directed and habitual mechanisms of choice. Normative views cast these mechanisms in terms of model-free and model-based methods of reinforcement learning, respectively. An influential proposal hypothesizes that model-free and model-based mechanisms coexist and compete in the brain according to their relative uncertainty. In this paper we propose a novel view in which a single Mixed Instrumental Controller produces both goal-directed and habitual behavior by flexibly balancing and combining model-based and model-free computations. The Mixed Instrumental Controller performs a cost-benefits analysis to decide whether to chose an action immediately based on the available "cached" value of actions (linked to model-free mechanisms) or to improve value estimation by mentally simulating the expected outcome values (linked to model-based mechanisms). Since mental simulation entails cognitive effort and increases the reward delay, it is activated only when the associated "Value of Information" exceeds its costs. The model proposes a method to compute the Value of Information, based on the uncertainty of action values and on the distance of alternative cached action values. Overall, the model by default chooses on the basis of lighter model-free estimates, and integrates them with costly model-based predictions only when useful. Mental simulation uses a sampling method to produce reward expectancies, which are used to update the cached value of one or more actions; in turn, this updated value is used for the choice. The key predictions of the model are tested in different settings of a double T-maze scenario. Results are discussed in relation with neurobiological evidence on the hippocampus - ventral striatum circuit in rodents, which has been linked to goal-directed spatial navigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 2%
France 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
China 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 162 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 33%
Researcher 30 17%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 22 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 33%
Neuroscience 30 17%
Computer Science 16 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 8%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 27 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 January 2022.
All research outputs
#13,236,704
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,536
of 29,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,322
of 281,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#533
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,955 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 56% 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 281,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.