(e.g., characters or fractals) and concrete stimuli (e.g., pictures of everyday objects) are used interchangeably in the reinforcement-learning literature. Yet, it is unclear whether the same learning processes underlie learning from these different stimulus types. In two preregistered experiments (N = 50 each), we assessed whether abstract and concrete stimuli yield different reinforcement-learning performance and whether this difference can be explained by verbalization. We argued that concrete stimuli are easier to verbalize than abstract ones, and that people therefore can appeal to the phonological loop, a subcomponent of the working-memory system responsible for storing and rehearsing verbal information, while learning. To test whether this verbalization aids reinforcement-learning performance, we administered a reinforcement-learning task in which participants learned either abstract or concrete stimuli while verbalization was hindered or not. In the first experiment, results showed a more pronounced detrimental effect of hindered verbalization for concrete than abstract stimuli on response times, but not on accuracy. In the second experiment, in which we reduced the response window, results showed the differential effect of hindered verbalization between stimulus types on accuracy, not on response times. These results imply that verbalization aids learning for concrete, but not abstract, stimuli and therefore that different processes underlie learning from these types of stimuli. This emphasizes the importance of carefully considering stimulus types. We discuss these findings in light of generalizability and validity of reinforcement-learning research.
Keywords: Cognitive processes; Interference; Reinforcement learning; Verbalization.
© 2024. The Author(s).