Abstract
Computational models can offer mechanistic insight into cognition and therefore have the potential to transform our understanding of psychiatric disorders and their treatment. For translational efforts to be successful, it is imperative that computational measures capture individual characteristics reliably. To date, this issue has received little consideration. Here we examine the reliability of reinforcement learning and economic models derived from two commonly used tasks. Healthy individuals (N=50) completed a restless four-armed bandit and a calibrated gambling task twice, two weeks apart. Reward and punishment processing parameters from the reinforcement learning model showed fair-to-good reliability, while risk/loss aversion parameters from a prospect theory model exhibited good-to-excellent reliability. Both models were further able to predict future behaviour above chance within individuals. This prediction was better when based on participants’ own model parameters than other participants’ parameter estimates. These results suggest that reinforcement learning, and particularly prospect theory parameters, can be measured reliably to assess learning and decision-making mechanisms, and that these processes may represent relatively distinct computational profiles across individuals. Overall, these findings indicate the translational potential of clinically-relevant computational parameters for precision psychiatry.