Comparing rapid rule-learning strategies in humans and monkeys

Abstract

AbstractInter-species comparisons are key to deriving an understanding of the behavioral and neural correlates of human cognition from animal models. We perform a detailed comparison of macaque monkey and human strategies on an analogue of the Wisconsin Card Sort Test, a widely studied and applied multi-attribute measure of cognitive function, wherein performance requires the inference of a changing rule given ambiguous feedback. We found that well-trained monkeys rapidly infer rules but are three times slower than humans. Model fits to their choices revealed hidden states akin to feature-based attention in both species, and decision processes that resembled a Win-stay lose-shift strategy with key differences. Monkeys and humans test multiple rule hypotheses over a series of rule-search trials and perform inference-like computations to exclude candidates. An attention-set based learning stage categorization revealed that perseveration, random exploration and poor sensitivity to negative feedback explain the under-performance in monkeys.