Limits...
Prediction and control in a dynamic environment.

Osman M, Speekenbrink M - Front Psychol (2012)

Bottom Line: The present study compared the accuracy of cue-outcome knowledge gained during prediction-based and control-based learning in stable and unstable dynamic environments.Study 2 (N = 28) showed that Controllers showed equivalent task knowledge when to compared to Predictors.The cue-outcome knowledge acquired during learning was sufficiently flexible to enable successful transfer to tests of control and prediction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Biological and Experimental Psychology Centre, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary College, University of London London, UK.

ABSTRACT
The present study compared the accuracy of cue-outcome knowledge gained during prediction-based and control-based learning in stable and unstable dynamic environments. Participants either learnt to make cue-interventions in order to control an outcome, or learnt to predict the outcome from observing changes to the cue values. Study 1 (N = 60) revealed that in tests of control, after a short period of familiarization, performance of Predictors was equivalent to Controllers. Study 2 (N = 28) showed that Controllers showed equivalent task knowledge when to compared to Predictors. Though both Controllers and Predictors showed good performance at test, overall Controllers showed an advantage. The cue-outcome knowledge acquired during learning was sufficiently flexible to enable successful transfer to tests of control and prediction.

No MeSH data available.


Error scores (± SE) in the learning phase of Experiment 2. For Controllers, these are control error scores, and for Predictors, these are predictive error scores.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3300109&req=5

Figure 4: Error scores (± SE) in the learning phase of Experiment 2. For Controllers, these are control error scores, and for Predictors, these are predictive error scores.

Mentions: The average control and prediction error scores by block (4 blocks of 10 trials each) in the learning phase are presented in Figure 4. For the Controllers, a one-way ANOVA on control scores showed a significant effect of Block, F(3,42) = 21.93, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.610. Further t-test comparisons were conducted and revealed that control error scores were lower in Blocks 2, 3, and 4 as compare to Block 1 (t = 6.67, p < 0.005, t = 5.90, p < 0.005, t = 11.76, p < 0.005). A similar analysis on the prediction scores for Predictors showed no effect of Block, F(3,42) = 0.36, p = 0.78, partial η2 = 0.025. Again, t-tests were conducted to examine if performance improved across-block. Analyses revealed that compared with Block 1, prediction error scores were lower in Block 2, 3, and 4 (t = 2.95, p = 0.011, t = 3.88, p = 0.002, t = 4.18, p = 0.001), no other comparisons were significant.


Prediction and control in a dynamic environment.

Osman M, Speekenbrink M - Front Psychol (2012)

Error scores (± SE) in the learning phase of Experiment 2. For Controllers, these are control error scores, and for Predictors, these are predictive error scores.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3300109&req=5

Figure 4: Error scores (± SE) in the learning phase of Experiment 2. For Controllers, these are control error scores, and for Predictors, these are predictive error scores.
Mentions: The average control and prediction error scores by block (4 blocks of 10 trials each) in the learning phase are presented in Figure 4. For the Controllers, a one-way ANOVA on control scores showed a significant effect of Block, F(3,42) = 21.93, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.610. Further t-test comparisons were conducted and revealed that control error scores were lower in Blocks 2, 3, and 4 as compare to Block 1 (t = 6.67, p < 0.005, t = 5.90, p < 0.005, t = 11.76, p < 0.005). A similar analysis on the prediction scores for Predictors showed no effect of Block, F(3,42) = 0.36, p = 0.78, partial η2 = 0.025. Again, t-tests were conducted to examine if performance improved across-block. Analyses revealed that compared with Block 1, prediction error scores were lower in Block 2, 3, and 4 (t = 2.95, p = 0.011, t = 3.88, p = 0.002, t = 4.18, p = 0.001), no other comparisons were significant.

Bottom Line: The present study compared the accuracy of cue-outcome knowledge gained during prediction-based and control-based learning in stable and unstable dynamic environments.Study 2 (N = 28) showed that Controllers showed equivalent task knowledge when to compared to Predictors.The cue-outcome knowledge acquired during learning was sufficiently flexible to enable successful transfer to tests of control and prediction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Biological and Experimental Psychology Centre, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary College, University of London London, UK.

ABSTRACT
The present study compared the accuracy of cue-outcome knowledge gained during prediction-based and control-based learning in stable and unstable dynamic environments. Participants either learnt to make cue-interventions in order to control an outcome, or learnt to predict the outcome from observing changes to the cue values. Study 1 (N = 60) revealed that in tests of control, after a short period of familiarization, performance of Predictors was equivalent to Controllers. Study 2 (N = 28) showed that Controllers showed equivalent task knowledge when to compared to Predictors. Though both Controllers and Predictors showed good performance at test, overall Controllers showed an advantage. The cue-outcome knowledge acquired during learning was sufficiently flexible to enable successful transfer to tests of control and prediction.

No MeSH data available.