Finally, we showed a novel model that relies on retrospective contingency, ANCCR (doi:10.1126/science.abq6740), does not explain our results under any parameter combination. (8/12)

Moreover, working with @jhennig.bsky.social, we showed small RNNS develop similar state space representations and explain our results in the same manner. (7/12)

We sought to identify a TD model to explain these changes. While several classic implementations of TD did not working (e.g. CSC & microstimuli), with a state representation that incorporated the animal’s learned knowledge of the task structure, TD was able to explain all our results. (6/12)

We performed a Pavlovian contingency degradation task to examine how behavior and dopamine activities are modulated in contingency learning. In this task, mice were first trained in a simple conditioning task. Then one group of mice received both cued and uncued rewards. (4/12)

I’m happy to share our latest work (co-lead by Selina Qian) has today been published in its final form in @:natureneuro.bsky.social: Read here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-025-01915-4
(1/12)