Skip to main content
Log in

Prior experience modifies acquisition trajectories via response–strategy sampling

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few studies have considered how signal detection parameters evolve during acquisition periods. We addressed this gap by training mice with differential prior experience in a conditional discrimination, auditory signal detection task. Naïve mice, mice given separate experience with each of the later correct choice options (Correct Choice Response Transfer, CCRT), and mice experienced in conditional discriminations (Conditional Discrimination Transfer, CDT) were trained to detect the presence or absence of a tone in white noise. We analyzed data assuming a two-period model of acquisition: a pre-solution and solution period (Heinemann EG (1983) in The Presolution period and the detection of statistical associations. In: Quantitative analyses of behavior: discrimination processes, vol. 4, pp. 21–36). Ballinger. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.536.1978andrep=rep1andtype=pdf). The pre-solution period was characterized by a selective sampling of biased response strategies until adoption of a conditional responding strategy in the solution period. Correspondingly, discriminability remained low until the solution period; criterion took excursions reflecting response–strategy sampling. Prior experience affected the length and composition of the pre-solution period. Whereas CCRT and CDT mice had shorter pre-solution periods than naïve mice, CDT and Naïve mice developed substantial criterion biases and acquired asymptotic discriminability faster than CCRT mice. To explain these data, we propose a learning model in which mice selectively sample and test different response-strategies and corresponding task structures until they exit the pre-solution period. Upon exit, mice adopt the conditional responding strategy and task structure, with action values updated via inference and generalization from the other task structures. Simulations of representative mouse data illustrate the viability of this model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Supporting materials can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FJZ87.

Code availability

Supporting materials can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FJZ87.

Notes

  1. We chose to not estimate parameters using maximum likelihood or Bayesian approaches precisely because of the two missing components: feedback function for updating P as a function of trial and the processes that inform π. Without knowing how to specify these components, misfits could be due to the inadequacy of our approximations rather than some in-principal failure of the model. Nevertheless, we took a principled approach in which we tried to minimize RSS by slowly adjusting parameters of each module and then asking the relative import of each module.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Charles Gallistel, David Freestone, Başak Akdoğan, and Jorge Mallea for helpful conversations that clarified analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. We would also like to thank Kimberly Bowman for help with data collection. This work was conducted while Carter W. Daniels was a T32 post-doctoral fellow at Columbia University; he is now a Quantitative Scientist at Prevail Therapeutics—a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Co. Correspondence should be addressed to Carter W. Daniels at carter.wa.daniels@gmail.com.

Funding

Carter W. Daniels was supported by a Fellowship in Schizophrenia Research (5T32MH018870) during this study; this study was supported by National Institutes of Mental Health Grant R01MH068073 to Peter Balsam.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CD and PB conceived and designed the study. CD collected data, conducted data analysis, and wrote the paper. PB provided feedback throughout the study and helped write the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carter W. Daniels.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of or competing interests to report.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by both the Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees under protocols entitled Cognition and Motivation in the Mouse: Behavior and Neurobiology with protocol numbers of AC-AAAW4459 and 1507, respectively.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 9205 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daniels, C.W., Balsam, P.D. Prior experience modifies acquisition trajectories via response–strategy sampling. Anim Cogn 26, 1217–1239 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-023-01769-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-023-01769-y

Keywords

Navigation