2012
DOI: 10.1109/tamd.2012.2202658
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reciprocity and Retaliation in Social Games With Adaptive Agents

Abstract: Game theory has been useful for understanding risk-taking and cooperative behavior. However, in studies of the neural basis of decision-making during games of conflict, subjects typically play against opponents with predetermined strategies. The present study introduces a neurobiologically plausible model of action selection and neuromodulation, which adapts to its opponent's strategy and environmental conditions. The model is based on the assumption that dopaminergic and serotonergic systems track expected re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it has been difficult to find empirical evidence supporting these roles for tonic and phasic neuromodulation. Our prior modeling has shown that direct opponency between these systems is not necessary to achieve behavioral opponency (Asher et al, 2010, 2012; Zaldivar et al, 2010). In many cases there is an environmental tradeoff between the expected rewards and costs, and this can lead to opponency between active reward-seeking and withdrawn behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, it has been difficult to find empirical evidence supporting these roles for tonic and phasic neuromodulation. Our prior modeling has shown that direct opponency between these systems is not necessary to achieve behavioral opponency (Asher et al, 2010, 2012; Zaldivar et al, 2010). In many cases there is an environmental tradeoff between the expected rewards and costs, and this can lead to opponency between active reward-seeking and withdrawn behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Empirical evidence and theoretical modeling have suggested that the mPFC, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the OFC control decision-making in the face of reward-cost tradeoffs (Rudebeck et al, 2006; Rushworth et al, 2007; Chelian et al, 2012). That is, the OFC's interaction with the DA system is monitoring the expected reward of an action, and the mPFC's interaction with the 5-HT system is monitoring the expected cost of an action (Zaldivar et al, 2010; Asher et al, 2012). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The association between tonic/phasic neuromodulation and explore/exploit behavior was originally put forth by Aston-Jones and Cohen (2005) based on their observations of the noradrenergic system during studies with awake-behaving monkeys. Based on this and other empirical evidence, we have extended the exploration/exploitation idea to other neuromodulatory systems ( Asher et al, 2010 , 2012a ; Zaldivar et al, 2010 ; Krichmar, 2013 ). Specifically, tonic levels of neuromodulation have been associated with distractible behavior and poor task performance, whereas phasic neuromodulation has been associated with attentiveness and good task performance ( Aston-Jones and Cohen, 2005 ).…”
Section: A Multidisciplinary Paradigm To Investigate the Serotonergicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, various types of agents have been used in games generally for a wide range of purposes, e.g. emotional game agent architectures (Spraragen and Madni 2014), agent-centric game design methodologies (Dignum et al 2009), memetic computing within games (Miche et al 2015), and adaptive agents in social games (Asher et al 2012). Galway et al (2008) extensively survey machine learning within digital games (neural networks, evolutionary computation, and reinforcement learning for game agent control), which provides a means to improve the behavioural dynamics of game agents by facilitating the automated generation and selection of behaviours according to the behaviour or playing style of the player.…”
Section: Levels Of Personalisation In Collaborative Gamesmentioning
confidence: 99%