Why we learn more from our successes than our failures

July 29, 2009 by Deborah Halber
Given different images as cues, monkeys were trained to look right or left for rewards. MIT neuroscientists found that neurons responded differently following correct and incorrect responses, with correct responses setting up the brain for additional successes. Courtesy / Earl Miller

(PhysOrg.com) -- If you've ever felt doomed to repeat your mistakes, researchers at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory may have explained why: Brain cells may only learn from experience when we do something right and not when we fail.

In the July 30 issue of the journal Neuron, Earl K. Miller, the Picower Professor of Neuroscience, and MIT colleagues Mark Histed and Anitha Pasupathy have created for the first time a unique snapshot of the learning process that shows how single cells change their responses in real time as a result of information about what is the right action and what is the wrong one.

"We have shown that brain cells keep track of whether recent behaviors were successful or not," Miller said. Furthermore, when a behavior was successful, cells became more finely tuned to what the animal was learning. After a failure, there was little or no change in the brain — nor was there any improvement in behavior.

The study sheds light on the linking environmental feedback to neural plasticity — the brain's ability to change in response to experience. It has implications for understanding how we learn, and understanding and treating learning disorders.

Rewarding success

Monkeys were given the task of looking at two alternating images on a computer screen. For one picture, the animal was rewarded when it shifted its gaze to the right; for another picture it was supposed to look left. The monkeys used trial and error to figure out which images cued which movements.

The researchers found that whether the animals' answers were right or wrong, signals within certain parts of their brains "resonated" with the repercussions of their answers for several seconds. The neural activity following a correct answer and a reward helped the monkeys do better on the trial that popped up a few seconds later.

"If the monkey just got a correct answer, a signal lingered in its brain that said, 'You did the right thing.' Right after a correct answer, neurons processed information more sharply and effectively, and the monkey was more likely to get the next answer correct as well," Miller said, "But after an error there was no improvement. In other words, only after successes, not failures, did brain processing and the monkeys' behavior improve."

Split-second influence

The orchestrates thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals while the basal ganglia are associated with motor control, cognition and emotions. This work shows that these two brain areas, long suspected to play key roles in learning and memory, have full information available to them to do all the neural computations necessary for learning.

The prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia, extensively connected with each other and with the rest of the brain, are thought to help us learn abstract associations by generating brief neural signals when a response is correct or incorrect. But researchers never understood how this transient activity, which fades in less than a second, influenced actions that occurred later.

In this study, the researchers found activity in many neurons within both brain regions that reflected the delivery or withholding of a reward lasted for several seconds, until the next trial. Single neurons in both areas conveyed strong, sustained outcome information for four to six seconds, spanning the entire time frame between trials.

Response selectivity was stronger on a given trial if the previous trial had been rewarded and weaker if the previous trial was an error. This occurred whether the animal was just learning the association or was already good at it.

After a correct response, the electrical impulses coming from in each of the brain areas was more robust and conveyed more information. "The signal-to-noise ratio improved in both brain regions," Miller said. "The heightened response led to them being more likely to get the next trial correct, too. This explains on a neural level why we seem to learn more from our successes than our failures."

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news : web)

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Nature or nurture? Innate social behaviors in the mouse brain

October 18, 2017
Adult male mice have a simple repertoire of innate, or instinctive, social behaviors: When encountering a female, a male mouse will try to mate with it, and when encountering another male, the mouse will attack. The animals ...

Brain activity predicts crowdfunding outcomes better than self-reports

October 18, 2017
Surveys and self-reports are a time-honored way of trying to predict consumer behavior, but they have limitations. People often give socially desirable answers or they simply don't know or remember things clearly.

Scientists may have found a cause of dyslexia

October 18, 2017
A duo of French scientists said Wednesday they may have found a physiological, and seemingly treatable, cause for dyslexia hidden in tiny light-receptor cells in the human eye.

Navigational view of the brain thanks to powerful X-rays

October 18, 2017
If brain imaging could be compared to Google Earth, neuroscientists would already have a pretty good "satellite view" of the brain, and a great "street view" of neuron details. But navigating how the brain computes is arguably ...

'Wasabi receptor' for pain discovered in flatworms

October 18, 2017
A Northwestern University research team has discovered how scalding heat and tissue injury activate an ancient "pain" receptor in simple animals. The findings could lead to new strategies for analgesic drug design for the ...

Changing stroke definitions is causing chaos, warns professor

October 18, 2017
Proposals to change the definitions of stroke and related conditions are causing confusion and chaos in clinical practice and research, a Monash University associate professor has warned.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

poi
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2009
After a correct response, the electrical impulses coming from neurons in each of the brain areas was more robust and conveyed more information. "The signal-to-noise ratio improved in both brain regions," Miller said. "The heightened response led to them being more likely to get the next trial correct, too. This explains on a neural level why we seem to learn more from our successes than our failures."

I have a problem with the phraseology. IMHO, it's not "learn more from" but more "learn more during" because it only talks about improved processes "during" success periods.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.