Fast rule switching and slow rule updating in a perceptual categorization task

  1. Flora Bouchacourt
  2. Sina Tafazoli
  3. Marcelo Mattar
  4. Timothy J Buschman
  5. Nathaniel D Daw  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. University of California, San Diego, United States

Abstract

To adapt to a changing world, we must be able to switch between rules already learned and, at other times, learn rules anew. Often we must do both at the same time, switching between known rules while also constantly re-estimating them. Here, we show these two processes, rule switching and rule learning, rely on distinct but intertwined computations, namely fast inference and slower incremental learning. To this end, we studied how monkeys switched between three rules. Each rule was compositional, requiring the animal to discriminate one of two features of a stimulus and then respond with an associated eye movement along one of two different response axes. By modeling behavior we found the animals learned the axis of response using fast inference (rule switching) while continuously re-estimating the stimulus-response associations within an axis (rule learning). Our results shed light on the computational interactions between rule switching and rule learning, and make testable neural predictions for these interactions.

Data availability

Codes and data supporting the findings of this study is available on GitHub (https://github.com/buschman- lab/FastRuleSwitchingSlowRuleUpdating).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Flora Bouchacourt

    Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8893-0143
  2. Sina Tafazoli

    Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Marcelo Mattar

    Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Timothy J Buschman

    Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1298-2761
  5. Nathaniel D Daw

    Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    ndaw@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5029-1430

Funding

U.S. Army Research Office (ARO W911NF-16-1-047)

  • Nathaniel D Daw

NIMH (R01MH129492)

  • Timothy J Buschman

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures were approved by Princeton University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #3055) and were in accordance with the policies and procedures of the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright

© 2022, Bouchacourt et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,361
    views
  • 359
    downloads
  • 6
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Flora Bouchacourt
  2. Sina Tafazoli
  3. Marcelo Mattar
  4. Timothy J Buschman
  5. Nathaniel D Daw
(2022)
Fast rule switching and slow rule updating in a perceptual categorization task
eLife 11:e82531.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82531

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82531

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhujun Shao, Mengya Zhang, Qing Yu
    Research Article

    When holding visual information temporarily in working memory (WM), the neural representation of the memorandum is distributed across various cortical regions, including visual and frontal cortices. However, the role of stimulus representation in visual and frontal cortices during WM has been controversial. Here, we tested the hypothesis that stimulus representation persists in the frontal cortex to facilitate flexible control demands in WM. During functional MRI, participants flexibly switched between simple WM maintenance of visual stimulus or more complex rule-based categorization of maintained stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results demonstrated enhanced stimulus representation in the frontal cortex that tracked demands for active WM control and enhanced stimulus representation in the visual cortex that tracked demands for precise WM maintenance. This differential frontal stimulus representation traded off with the newly-generated category representation with varying control demands. Simulation using multi-module recurrent neural networks replicated human neural patterns when stimulus information was preserved for network readout. Altogether, these findings help reconcile the long-standing debate in WM research, and provide empirical and computational evidence that flexible stimulus representation in the frontal cortex during WM serves as a potential neural coding scheme to accommodate the ever-changing environment.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gáspár Oláh, Rajmund Lákovics ... Gábor Tamás
    Research Article

    Human-specific cognitive abilities depend on information processing in the cerebral cortex, where the neurons are significantly larger and their processes longer and sparser compared to rodents. We found that, in synaptically connected layer 2/3 pyramidal cells (L2/3 PCs), the delay in signal propagation from soma to soma is similar in humans and rodents. To compensate for the longer processes of neurons, membrane potential changes in human axons and/or dendrites must propagate faster. Axonal and dendritic recordings show that the propagation speed of action potentials (APs) is similar in human and rat axons, but the forward propagation of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) and the backward propagation of APs are 26 and 47% faster in human dendrites, respectively. Experimentally-based detailed biophysical models have shown that the key factor responsible for the accelerated EPSP propagation in human cortical dendrites is the large conductance load imposed at the soma by the large basal dendritic tree. Additionally, larger dendritic diameters and differences in cable and ion channel properties in humans contribute to enhanced signal propagation. Our integrative experimental and modeling study provides new insights into the scaling rules that help maintain information processing speed albeit the large and sparse neurons in the human cortex.