↓ Skip to main content

Analyses of Markov decision process structure regarding the possible strategic use of interacting memory systems

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Analyses of Markov decision process structure regarding the possible strategic use of interacting memory systems
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, December 2008
DOI 10.3389/neuro.10.006.2008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric A Zilli, Michael E Hasselmo

Abstract

Behavioral tasks are often used to study the different memory systems present in humans and animals. Such tasks are usually designed to isolate and measure some aspect of a single memory system. However, it is not necessarily clear that any given task actually does isolate a system or that the strategy used by a subject in the experiment is the one desired by the experimenter. We have previously shown that when tasks are written mathematically as a form of partially observable Markov decision processes, the structure of the tasks provide information regarding the possible utility of certain memory systems. These previous analyses dealt with the disambiguation problem: given a specific ambiguous observation of the environment, is there information provided by a given memory strategy that can disambiguate that observation to allow a correct decision? Here we extend this approach to cases where multiple memory systems can be strategically combined in different ways. Specifically, we analyze the disambiguation arising from three ways by which episodic-like memory retrieval might be cued (by another episodic-like memory, by a semantic association, or by working memory for some earlier observation). We also consider the disambiguation arising from holding earlier working memories, episodic-like memories or semantic associations in working memory. From these analyses we can begin to develop a quantitative hierarchy among memory systems in which stimulus-response memories and semantic associations provide no disambiguation while the episodic memory system provides the most flexible disambiguation, with working memory at an intermediate level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 7%
United Kingdom 3 5%
Brazil 1 2%
China 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 49 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 24%
Researcher 14 24%
Professor 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 19%
Neuroscience 9 15%
Computer Science 5 8%
Engineering 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 5 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,240
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,182
of 182,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 182,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.