ABSTRACT: Depressive pathology, which includes both heightened negative affect (e.g., anxiety) and reduced positive affect (e.g., anhedonia), is known to be associated with sub-optimal decision-making, particularly in uncertain environments. Here, we use a computational approach to quantify and disambiguate how individual differences in these affective measures specifically relate to different aspects of learning and decision-making in reward-based choice behavior. Fifty-three individuals with a range of depressed mood completed a two-armed bandit task, in which they choose between two arms with fixed but unknown reward rates. The decision-making component, which chooses among options based on current expectations about reward rates, is modeled by two different decision policies: a learning-independent Win-stay/Lose-shift (WSLS) policy that ignores all previous experiences except the last trial, and Softmax, which prefers the arm with the higher expected reward. To model the learning component for the Softmax choice policy, we use a Bayesian inference model, which updates estimated reward rates based on the observed history of trial outcomes. Softmax with Bayesian learning better fits the behavior of 55% of the participants, while the others are better fit by a learning-independent WSLS strategy. Among Softmax "users", those with higher anhedonia are less likely to choose the option estimated to be most rewarding. Moreover, the Softmax parameter mediates the inverse relationship between anhedonia and overall monetary gains. On the other hand, among WSLS "users", higher state anxiety correlates with increasingly better ability of WSLS, relative to Softmax, to explain subjects' trial-by-trial choices. In summary, there is significant variability among individuals in their reward-based, exploratory decision-making, and this variability is at least partly mediated in a very specific manner by affective attributes, such as hedonic tone and state anxiety.
