Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 29.
Published in final edited form as: J Cogn Neurosci. 2020 Nov 9;33(2):248–262. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01647

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Comparison of goodness-of-fit between different location-based RL models reveals that RLInc(1) model provided the best overall fit. (A) The difference between BIC for fits based on the RLInc(1) model and the three competing models (indicated on the x-axis). Bars show the median of the difference in BIC and errors are s.e.m. Reported p-values are based on a two-sided sign test. Each data point shows the goodness-of-fit for one session of the experiment. For monkey 1, fits based on the RLInc(1) and RLret models were not significantly different. (B) The same as in A but based on the difference in AIC. (C–D) Similar to panels A and B but for monkey 2.