Characterizing learning by simultaneous analysis of continuous and binary measures of performance.
Continuous observations, such as reaction and run times, and binary observations, such as correct/incorrect responses, are recorded routinely in behavioral learning experiments. Although both types of performance measures are often recorded simultaneously, the two have not been used in combination to evaluate learning. We present a state-space model of learning in which the observation process has simultaneously recorded continuous and binary measures of performance. We use these performance measures simultaneously to estimate the model parameters and the unobserved cognitive state process by maximum likelihood using an approximate expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. We introduce the concept of a reaction-time curve and reformulate our previous definitions of the learning curve, the ideal observer curve, the learning trial and between-trial comparisons of performance in terms of the new model. We illustrate the properties of the new model in an analysis of a simulated learning experiment. In the simulated data analysis, simultaneous use of the two measures of performance provided more credible and accurate estimates of the learning than either measure analyzed separately. We also analyze two actual learning experiments in which the performance of rats and of monkeys was tracked across trials by simultaneously recorded reaction and run times and the correct and incorrect responses. In the analysis of the actual experiments, our algorithm gave a straightforward, efficient way to characterize learning by combining continuous and binary measures of performance. This analysis paradigm has implications for characterizing learning and for the more general problem of combining different data types to characterize the properties of a neural system.
Prerau
M J
MJ
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2696, USA.
Smith
A C
AC
Eden
Uri T
UT
Kubota
Y
Y
Yanike
M
M
Suzuki
W
W
Graybiel
A M
AM
Brown
E N
EN
D000465:Algorithms; D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning; D003071:Cognition; D003198:Computer Simulation; D000882:Haplorhini; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D008959:Models, Neurological; D017711:Nonlinear Dynamics; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011336:Probability; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology
J Neurosci. 2005 Jun 15;25(24):5720-9
15958738
Hippocampus. 1999;9(2):101-17
10226772
J Neurosci. 2004 Jan 14;24(2):447-61
14724243
Science. 2003 Jun 6;300(5625):1578-81
12791995
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Mar;97(3):2516-24
17182907
Science. 1999 Nov 26;286(5445):1745-9
10576743
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 Mar;54(3):419-28
17355053
J Neurosci. 2003 Jan 15;23(2):676-81
12533627
Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):550-92
11488378
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 7;101(36):13124-31
15331782
Behav Neurosci. 1991 Dec;105(6):787-97
1777102
Neuroimage. 2008 Sep 1;42(3):1069-77
18602485
Nature. 2006 Jul 13;442(7099):164-71
16838014
Neural Comput. 2003 May;15(5):965-91
12803953
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jul 21;95(15):8945-50
9671784
J Neurosci. 1997 Dec 1;17(23):9285-97
9364074
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Apr;9(4):562-8
16501567
J Neurophysiol. 2005 Mar;93(3):1776-92
15456798
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jun 24;94(13):7109-14
9192700
PLoS Biol. 2006 Jun;4(6):e179
16700627
Nature. 2005 Oct 20;437(7062):1158-61
16237445
Behav Neurosci. 2003 Aug;117(4):728-37
12931958
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Mar 13;98(6):3543-8
11248114
Psychol Rev. 2002 Jul;109(3):533-44
12088244
Biol Cybern. 2008 Jul;99(1):1-14
18438683
Behav Neurosci. 1993 Feb;107(1):72-81
8447959
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Oct;98(4):2456-75
17522167