The involvement of rTPJ, dmPFC, and STS/MTG in updating estimates about others’ expertise through simulating their own prediction accords with previous demonstrations that these regions encode prediction errors in situations where subjects simulate either the intentions of a social partner (Behrens et al., 2008) or the likely future behavior of a confederate (Hampton et al., 2008). Recent check details studies have examined the relative contributions of structures in the mentalizing network to aspects of social cognition (e.g., Carter et al., 2012). In our study, we did not find any clear differences between these regions in tracking expertise, although multivariate approaches may prove more
sensitive to any such differences. Activity in yet another pair of brain regions, rdlPFC and lateral precuneus, reflected aPEs when subjects revised expectations at feedback, and in parallel to rPEs identified in striatum. Selleck Tanespimycin Similar regions have been implicated in executive control and, intriguingly, have recently been shown to encode model-based state prediction errors (Gläscher et al., 2010). Moreover, activity in rdlPFC elicited by evidence-based aPEs reflected individual differences in subjects’ relative reliance on evidence-based aPEs, compared to simulation-based aPEs, during learning. Activity in this region therefore
reflects individual differences in the extent to which learning is driven by correct agent performance or subjects’ own beliefs about the best prediction. We found that subjects credited people more than algorithms for correct predictions that they
agreed with rather than with correct predictions that they disagreed with. In fact, subjects gave substantial credit to people for correct predictions they agreed with but hardly gave them any credit for correct predictions they disagreed with, whereas this distinction had little impact on crediting algorithms for correct predictions (see Figure 2D). Furthermore, subjects penalized people less than algorithms for incorrect predictions with which they agreed compared to disagreed. This difference in learning about people and algorithms is striking because the only difference between them in our study was the image to which they were assigned. A key open question concerns PDK4 what factors control the construction of the prior categories that lead to this behavioral difference. We speculate that one source of the difference between people and algorithms may be related to the perceived similarity of the agent to the subject. It is likely that subjects thought of the human agents as more similar to themselves, which may have led them to relate or sympathize more with people than with algorithms as a function of their own beliefs about what constituted a reasonable choice. This differential updating for people and algorithms was reflected in brain regions thought to be important for contingent learning in nonsocial contexts (Tanaka et al.