2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inference-Based Decisions in a Hidden State Foraging Task: Differential Contributions of Prefrontal Cortical Areas

Abstract: Essential features of the world are often hidden and must be inferred by constructing internal models based on indirect evidence. Here, to study the mechanisms of inference, we establish a foraging task that is naturalistic and easily learned yet can distinguish inference from simpler strategies such as the direct integration of sensory data. We show that both mice and humans learn a strategy consistent with optimal inference of a hidden state. However, humans acquire this strategy more than an order of magnit… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
70
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
7
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reward delivery at a given site was probabilistic (given by P REW ) and switched stochastically to 0 after a variable number of licks, controlled by the probability of site depletion (P DPL ; STAR Methods ). 25 Mice were trained to remain still while licking at a given site and to run a set distance on a treadmill to switch between sites ( Figure 1 B). Consistent with previous reports, 1 , 26 , 27 we observed a tight relationship between PS and locomotor states ( Figure 1 C; across sessions, cross-correlation maximum r = 0.44 ± 0.13, p < 10 −7 ; Figures S1 A and S1B).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reward delivery at a given site was probabilistic (given by P REW ) and switched stochastically to 0 after a variable number of licks, controlled by the probability of site depletion (P DPL ; STAR Methods ). 25 Mice were trained to remain still while licking at a given site and to run a set distance on a treadmill to switch between sites ( Figure 1 B). Consistent with previous reports, 1 , 26 , 27 we observed a tight relationship between PS and locomotor states ( Figure 1 C; across sessions, cross-correlation maximum r = 0.44 ± 0.13, p < 10 −7 ; Figures S1 A and S1B).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although recent work has examined foraging tasks within a systems neuroscience framework [90][91][92][93], there remain many open questions related to how the brain processes key aspects of foraging decisions. For example, experiments with the "Self-control preparation," where an animal chooses between two choices, have significant behavioral differences with those that have a sequential foraging "patch preparation", even though from an economic standpoint, the setups are equivalent [94].…”
Section: Experimental Applications: Behavior and Neurosciencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mice had the choice to exploit either one of two resource sites ( Figure 1A). Reward delivery at a given site was probabilistic (given by P REW ) and switched stochastically to 0 after a variable number of licks, controlled by the probability of site depletion (P DPL , see STAR Methods and [25]). Mice were trained to remain still while licking at a given site and to run a set distance on a treadmill to switch between sites.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probabilistic foraging task. The task for head-fixed mice was adapted from a version developed for freely moving animals [25]. Here, mice collected water rewards by licking at a spout from either one of two ressource sites.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation