↓ Skip to main content

Altered Statistical Learning and Decision-Making in Methamphetamine Dependence: Evidence from a Two-Armed Bandit Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Altered Statistical Learning and Decision-Making in Methamphetamine Dependence: Evidence from a Two-Armed Bandit Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01910
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katia M. Harlé, Shunan Zhang, Max Schiff, Scott Mackey, Martin P. Paulus, Angela J. Yu

Abstract

Understanding how humans weigh long-term and short-term goals is important for both basic cognitive science and clinical neuroscience, as substance users need to balance the appeal of an immediate high vs. the long-term goal of sobriety. We use a computational model to identify learning and decision-making abnormalities in methamphetamine-dependent individuals (MDI, n = 16) vs. healthy control subjects (HCS, n = 16), in a two-armed bandit task. In this task, subjects repeatedly choose between two arms with fixed but unknown reward rates. Each choice not only yields potential immediate reward but also information useful for long-term reward accumulation, thus pitting exploration against exploitation. We formalize the task as comprising a learning component, the updating of estimated reward rates based on ongoing observations, and a decision-making component, the choice among options based on current beliefs and uncertainties about reward rates. We model the learning component as iterative Bayesian inference (the Dynamic Belief Model), and the decision component using five competing decision policies: Win-stay/Lose-shift (WSLS), ε-Greedy, τ-Switch, Softmax, Knowledge Gradient. HCS and MDI significantly differ in how they learn about reward rates and use them to make decisions. HCS learn from past observations but weigh recent data more, and their decision policy is best fit as Softmax. MDI are more likely to follow the simple learning-independent policy of WSLS, and among MDI best fit by Softmax, they have more pessimistic prior beliefs about reward rates and are less likely to choose the option estimated to be most rewarding. Neurally, MDI's tendency to avoid the most rewarding option is associated with a lower gray matter volume of the thalamic dorsal lateral nucleus. More broadly, our work illustrates the ability of our computational framework to help reveal subtle learning and decision-making abnormalities in substance use.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Professor 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 30%
Neuroscience 13 19%
Engineering 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 21 31%
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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,369,485
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,654
of 29,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,320
of 388,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#184
of 420 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,825 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 64% 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 388,246 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 420 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 55% of its contemporaries.