↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Task-Specific Response Strategy Selection on the Basis of Recent Training Experience

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Task-Specific Response Strategy Selection on the Basis of Recent Training Experience
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003425
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline M. Fulvio, C. Shawn Green, Paul R. Schrater

Abstract

The goal of training is to produce learning for a range of activities that are typically more general than the training task itself. Despite a century of research, predicting the scope of learning from the content of training has proven extremely difficult, with the same task producing narrowly focused learning strategies in some cases and broadly scoped learning strategies in others. Here we test the hypothesis that human subjects will prefer a decision strategy that maximizes performance and reduces uncertainty given the demands of the training task and that the strategy chosen will then predict the extent to which learning is transferable. To test this hypothesis, we trained subjects on a moving dot extrapolation task that makes distinct predictions for two types of learning strategy: a narrow model-free strategy that learns an input-output mapping for training stimuli, and a general model-based strategy that utilizes humans' default predictive model for a class of trajectories. When the number of distinct training trajectories is low, we predict better performance for the mapping strategy, but as the number increases, a predictive model is increasingly favored. Consonant with predictions, subject extrapolations for test trajectories were consistent with using a mapping strategy when trained on a small number of training trajectories and a predictive model when trained on a larger number. The general framework developed here can thus be useful both in interpreting previous patterns of task-specific versus task-general learning, as well as in building future training paradigms with certain desired outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
France 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 71 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 34%
Researcher 18 23%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 16 21%