Neural Arbitration between Social and Individual Learning Systems

Abstract

Decision making often requires integrating self-gathered information with information acquired from observing others. Depending on the situation, it may be beneficial to rely more on one than the other source, taking into account that either information may be imprecise or deceiving. The process by which one source is selected over the other based on perceived reliability, here defined as arbitration, has not been fully elucidated. In this study, we formalised arbitration as the relative reliability (precision) of predictions afforded by each learning system using hierarchical Bayesian models. In a probabilistic learning task, participants predicted the outcome of a lottery using recommendations from a more informed advisor and self-sampled outcomes. The number of points participants wagered on their predictions reflected arbitration: The higher the relative precision of one learning system over the other and the lower the intention volatility, the more points participants wagered on a given trial. Functional neuroimaging demonstrated that the arbitration signal was independent of decision confidence and involved modalityspecific brain regions. Arbitrating in favour of self-gathered information activated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the midbrain whereas arbitrating in favour of social information engaged ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction. These findings are in line with domain specificity and indicate that relative precision captures arbitration between social and individual learning systems at both the behavioural and neural level.