Skip to main content
Advertisement

< Back to Article

Mixtures of strategies underlie rodent behavior during reversal learning

Fig 3

Block Hidden Markov Model.

a) Behavior of an example agent generated by a Hidden Markov process with K = 3 components. Colored circles represent the underlying hidden states, zi, which evolve according to a Markov chain. Each state (shown by blue, red and green shade) follows a different set of underlying switching dynamics. Blue dots represent correct choices, red crosses represent incorrect choices. (Inset) Average transition function across all blocks of the session (black) together with the fitted sigmoidal curve (blue). b) (Top) Transition functions corresponding to each of the three hidden states, zi = 1, 2, 3. Each sigmoidal curve can be parameterized by three features, the slope αi, offset si, and lapse εi. Arrows represent transition probabilities between the states. (Bottom) Eqs of the blockHMM generative model. Each hidden state governs the choice sequence in each block according to the sigmoidal transitions (Eqs 1 and 2). The log–likelihood of the observed choices in the block is the sum of the log–likelihoods of individual trials (Eq 3). c) (Top) Example behavior in 1000 blocks of trials generated by the same blockHMM mixture shown in panels a and b. Each column represents one block, with trials 1 to 30 of each block running from top to bottom. Red represents incorrect choices and blue represents correct choices. (Middle) True states that underlie the behavior shown in the top panel. (Bottom) Inferred latent states by the blockHMM fitting procedure. d) (Left) Convergence of the log–likelihood during model fitting in panel c to the true log–likelihood of the data (dashed line). (Right) Dependence of cross–validated log–likelihood on the number of components, K. e) True and inferred transition matrices for the behavior shown in panel c. f) Grouping of blocks of trials according to the inferred state after the model fitting with K = 3 HMM components. (Top) Raw behavioral performance grouped by the identity of the inferred latent state. (Bottom) Average transition function and fitted sigmoidal curve for all blocks that share the same inferred state. g) Comparison of true and inferred parameters for the three components of the behavior shown in panel c.

Fig 3

doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011430.g003