We propose a new conceptual framework (computational validity) for translation across species and populations based on the computational similarity between the information processing underlying parallel tasks. Translating between species depends not on the superficial similarity of the tasks presented, but rather on the computational similarity of the strategies and mechanisms that underlie those behaviours. Computational validity goes beyond construct validity by directly addressing questions of information processing. Computational validity interacts with circuit validity as computation depends on circuits, but similar computations could be accomplished by different circuits. Because different individuals may use different computations to accomplish a given task, computational validity suggests that behaviour should be understood through the subject's point of view; thus, behaviour should be characterized on an individual level rather than a task level. Tasks can constrain the computational algorithms available to a subject and the observed subtleties of that behaviour can provide information about the computations used by each individual. Computational validity has especially high relevance for the study of psychiatric disorders, given the new views of psychiatry as identifying and mediating information processing dysfunctions that may show high inter-individual variability, as well as for animal models investigating aspects of human psychiatric disorders. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Systems neuroscience through the lens of evolutionary theory’.

Previous continuous choice laboratory procedures for human participants are either prohibitively time‐intensive or result in inadequate fits of the generalized matching law (GML). We developed a rapid‐acquisition laboratory procedure (Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady‐State Behavior, or PRESS‐B) for studying human continuous choice that reduces participant burden and produces data that is well‐described by the GML. To test the procedure, 27 human participants were exposed to 9 independent concurrent random‐interval random‐interval reinforcement schedules over the course of a single, 37‐min session. Fits of the GML to the participants' data accounted for large proportions of variance (median R2: 0.94), with parameter estimates that were similar to those previously found in human continuous choice studies [median a: 0.67; median log(b): ‐0.02]. In summary, PRESS‐B generates human continuous choice behavior in the laboratory that conforms to the GML with limited experimental duration.

No abstract

Virtual organisms animated by a selectionist theory of behavior dynamics worked on concurrent random interval schedules where both the rate and magnitude of reinforcement were varied. The selectionist theory consists of a set of simple rules of selection, recombination, and mutation that act on a population of potential behaviors by means of a genetic algorithm. An extension of the power function matching equation, which expresses behavior allocation as a joint function of exponentiated reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude ratios, was fitted to the virtual organisms' data, and over a range of moderate mutation rates was found to provide an excellent description of their behavior without residual trends. The mean exponents in this range of mutation rates were 0.83 for the reinforcement rate ratio and 0.68 for the reinforcer magnitude ratio, which are values that are comparable to those obtained in experiments with live organisms. These findings add to the evidence supporting the selectionist theory, which asserts that the world of behavior we observe and measure is created by evolutionary dynamics.

Background A long line of theoretical and empirical evidence implicates negative reinforcement as a process underlying the etiology and maintenance of risky alcohol use behaviors from adolescence through emerging adulthood. However, the bulk of this literature has relied on self-report measures and there is a notable absence of behavioral modes of assessments of negative reinforcement-based alcohol-related risk-taking. To address this clear gap in the literature, the current study presents the first published data on the reliability and validity of the Maryland Resource for the Behavioral Utilization of the Reinforcement of Negative Stimuli (MRBURNS), which is a modified version of the positive reinforcement-based Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Methods Participants included a convenience sample of 116 college freshmen ever regular drinkers (aged 18–19) who completed both behavioral tasks; self-report measures of negative reinforcement/avoidance constructs and of positive reinforcement/appetitive constructs to examine convergent validity and discriminant validity, respectively; and self-report measures of alcohol use, problems, and motives to examine criterion validity. Results The MRBURNS evidenced sound experimental properties and reliability across task trials. In support of convergent validity, risk taking on the MRBURNS correlated significantly with negative urgency, difficulties in emotion regulation and depressive and anxiety-related symptoms. In support of discriminant validity, performance on the MRBURNS was unrelated to risk taking on the BART, sensation seeking, and trait impulsivity. Finally, pertaining to criterion validity, risk taking on the MRBURNS was related to alcohol-related problems but not heavy episodic alcohol use. Notably, risk taking on the MRBURNS was associated with negative reinforcement-based but not with positive reinforcement-based drinking motives. Conclusions Data from this initial investigation suggest the utility of the MRBURNS as a behavioral measure of negative-reinforcement based risk-taking that can provide a useful compliment to existing self-report measures to improve our understanding of the relationship between avoidant reinforcement processes and risky alcohol use.