The neurocognitive role of working memory load when Pavlovian motivational control affects instrumental learning
Fig 3
Model comparison results and posterior distribution of the group-level parameters of the best-fitting model (N = 49).
(A) Relative LOOIC difference indicates the difference in LOOIC between the best-fitting model and each of the other models. The best-fitting model was the full model, which assumed separate Pavlovian bias, learning rate, and irreducible noise in GNG and WMGNG tasks. Lower LOOIC indicates better model fit. (B) Posterior distributions of group-level parameters from the best-fitting model. Learning rate and irreducible noise estimates were credibly different in the GNG and WMGNG tasks, while Pavlovian bias estimates were not. Dots indicate medians and bars indicate 95% HDIs. Asterisks indicate that the 95% HDIs of the two parameters’ posterior distributions do not overlap (i.e., differences are credible).