fMRI studies, and assessments of learning deficits in Parkinson’s patients, support a functional dissociation of

declarative or observational learning from non-declarative, procedural learning http://www.selleckchem.com/products/ABT-263.html (Ostlund and Balleine, 2007, Poldrack et al., 2001 and Shohamy et al., 2004). Furthermore, while explicit knowledge acquisition may be subject to distraction by other motivations, implicit learning of action-outcome associations may be less vulnerable to distraction (Neumann, 1990). From these considerations it is reasonable to predict superior learning through action than through observation. In this study, our aim was to make a controlled comparison between active and observational learning in the context of human probabilistic value learning. Thus, we implemented a learning task where individuals learnt either by active sampling (with associated reward and punishment) or by passive observation. We check details assessed learning efficacy as shown by goal-directed choices and individuals’ explicit estimates of value. All aspects of the

tasks, save for the critical factor of self versus other choice, were matched across two modes of value learning. Specifically, differences in attention and information were controlled, as participants could track the same sequences of outcomes in both learning conditions, as was motivation to learn, since participants earned money according to learning performance in both conditions. In this first experiment we recruited 17 healthy participants, screened for neurological or psychological disorders. Participants

failing to reach a criterion of 60% accuracy by the end of each session, when choosing between the 80/20 probability of winning pair, were excluded from further analysis, given a performance level barely exceeding chance (i.e. 50% accuracy) and was considered as a failure to engage sufficiently with the task. This was the Farnesyltransferase case only for one participant, leaving 16 participants for the full analysis (nine female, mean age 23.8 yrs, SD 3.0). Participants provided informed consent, according to UCL Research Ethics Committee approved procedures. Participants completed two sessions on consecutive days. In the first (the ‘actor session’), participants made choices between four stimuli (letters from Agathodaimon font), presented in different pairs on each trial, while concurrently attempting to learn the probability of winning from each. Participants were made aware that each stimulus was associated with a discrete and constant probability of winning (pwin), and outcomes of each stimulus were drawn independently on every trial. Outcomes of chosen and unchosen stimuli were then shown sequentially, with yellow and red boxes indicating winning and losing outcomes, respectively. Critically, these outcomes directly influenced participant’s earnings for the actor session (with £1 awarded for each chosen win from 10 randomly selected trials).