The neuroscientist decoding how the brain learns

Summary

Science Quickly — June 17, 2026

Episode Summary: "The Neuroscientist Decoding How the Brain Learns"

Host: Rachel Feltman (Scientific American)
Guest: Kale Machado Costa, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

---

Overview

In this episode, Rachel Feltman interviews Dr. Kale Machado Costa, one of Scientific American’s 2026 Young American Scientists. Costa’s research explores the neurological basis of learning, how the brain encodes experiences, and the implications for mental health and disease. The conversation delves into unexpected findings in mouse models, the challenge of predictions in scientific research, and evolving frameworks for understanding how the brain learns through “model-based” and “model-free” processes.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The "Curse" of Scientific Predictions

• [01:48] Rachel asks why Costa describes himself as “slightly cursed.”
  • Costa shares that his predictions in experiments almost always prove wrong.

    “Almost every single time when I make a prediction and I do the experiments, I get the opposite results. Or something that was entirely unexpected, not even in the realm of my imagination at the time.” — Kale Machado Costa [01:57]

  • He considers this both a curse and a blessing, as it keeps research exciting and iterative.

The Value of Hypotheses in Research

• [02:36] Discussion on how surprises shape Costa’s research approach.
  • Costa emphasizes that having a strong, specific hypothesis at the onset is crucial—even if the hypothesis is proven wrong, the results are still informative.
  • He encourages his lab to pursue projects with clear predictions to ensure that outcomes, even unexpected ones, yield publishable insights.
  • Quote:

    “If your prediction is wrong, you still have an informative result...having a very strong, very specific prediction at the onset of your experiment really, really helps you achieve not only a publishable, but really an informative, a significant result.” — Kale Machado Costa [02:59]

Surprising Findings with Standard Mouse Models

• [04:06] Rachel invites Costa to share an example where things “didn’t go quite right.”
  • Costa recounts his PhD work with DAT cre mice—a widely used transgenic model for manipulating dopamine neurons.
  • He discovered that control mice demonstrated odd behaviors, skewing results. Upon deeper examination, he found the mice, especially females, inherently displayed ADHD-like phenotypes (hyperactivity, impaired dopamine transporter function).
  • This revelation called into question interpretations of results using this mouse line and was published in a top neuroscience journal.
  • Quote:

    “What I ended up discovering was that this widely used mouse line...had a very particular, very strong sex dependent phenotype...especially the females...they were a model of ADHD, so they were hyperactive, they had lower DAT function.” — Kale Machado Costa [05:09]

How the Brain Learns: Model-Free vs. Model-Based

• [06:34] Transition to Costa’s main research on learning frameworks.
  • Costa explains two major ideas:
    • Model-Free Learning: Learning the value (good/bad) of actions/cues through experience; simple, computationally cheap.
    • Model-Based Learning: Building an internal simulation of the world for flexible inference and generalization; computationally richer.
  • Rachel summarizes:

    • “Model based learning Is essentially building an internal simulation of how reality works. And model free learning is pretty much just trial and error, where you’re keeping track of what works and what doesn’t.” — Rachel Feltman [08:42]

Challenging the Two-System Dichotomy

• [09:04] Costa shares two findings from his own research.
  • Dopamine is not just for rewards: Costa’s experiments show dopamine signals encode prediction errors for non-rewarding events—aligning more with model-based, not just model-free, learning.
  • Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC) Nuances: Inactivating the OFC didn't just shut down model-based learning; it led animals to form “confused, imprecise” internal models rather than lose modeling ability altogether.
  • This suggests maladaptive behaviors, including psychiatric conditions, may result from distorted models rather than a simple failure or switch between systems.
  • Quote:

    “...someone may have a representation that is very detailed, very accurate, very adapted...while someone else may be having a representation that is not as precise, that is actually confusing different associations forming a rather distorted view of the world.” — Kale Machado Costa [11:43]

Broader Implications for Mental Health and Neuroscience

• [12:29] Rachel asks about real-world implications.
  • Costa proposes we focus less on the binary “model-free vs. model-based” and more on the complexity and accuracy of internal models, which could advance computational psychiatry.
  • Example: In schizophrenia, deficits in “latent inhibition” (attentional filtering) may produce chaotic models of reality, fueling hallucinations and cognitive disturbance.
  • In addiction research, the prevailing theory of a switch from model-based to model-free strategies is questioned. Instead, the issue may be the formation of disordered models of the world.
  • Quote:

    “...what if we had computational tools...in which we could interpret the hallucinations and kind of the cognitive deficits that we see as schizophrenia...as the creation of a disordered model that has its own particular structure, we might be better able to pinpoint what are the cognitive processes that go awry in mental illness.” — Kale Machado Costa [13:32]

Questions Driving the Future of Costa's Lab

• [15:46] Rachel’s closing question: What’s next?
  • Costa’s lab is digging into the “informational content” of dopamine signals—what types of prediction errors are being encoded, beyond rewards.
  • The lab is also examining how interactions between neuromodulators (dopamine, acetylcholine) affect learning, and how these neuromodulators may shape different dimensions of learning.
  • Costa wants to understand environmental and cellular mechanisms that govern when the brain constructs detailed versus simple models—and how this scales down to the neuron.
  • Quote:

    “...trying to understand what are the mechanisms, both informational and cellular and molecular, that determine what do we learn? Like what exactly do we incorporate into the brain, into our mind, when we are exposed to different events of the world?” — Kale Machado Costa [17:57]

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Scientific Surprises:

  “Almost every single time when I make a prediction and I do the experiments, I get the opposite results. Or something that was entirely unexpected, not even in the realm of my imagination at the time.”
  — Kale Machado Costa [01:57]

• On Hypotheses in Science:

  “If your prediction is wrong, you still have an informative result...having a very strong, very specific prediction at the onset of your experiment really, really helps you achieve...a significant result.”
  — Kale Machado Costa [02:59]

• On Mouse Model Pitfalls:

  “Especially the females...they were a model of ADHD, so they were hyperactive, they had lower DAT function.”
  — Kale Machado Costa [05:09]

• On Flexible Models vs. Dichotomies:

  “...someone may have a representation that is very detailed, very accurate...while someone else may be having a representation that is not as precise, that is actually confusing different associations forming a rather distorted view of the world.”
  — Kale Machado Costa [11:43]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:14] Start of interview and guest introduction
• [01:48] Costa on being “slightly cursed” by scientific surprises
• [02:36] The importance of hypotheses and approaching experimental failure
• [04:06] Mouse model surprise: ADHD-like traits confound results
• [06:34] Introduction to model-free and model-based learning theories
• [09:04] Costa’s findings: Dopamine signals more than value; OFC and learning precision
• [12:29] Implications for psychiatric illness, computational psychiatry, addiction
• [15:46] Unanswered questions: future directions in decoding learning

---

Conclusion

Dr. Kale Machado Costa’s work is reshaping how neuroscientists conceptualize learning—moving from binary frameworks to a spectrum of internal models varying in complexity and accuracy. His findings challenge old assumptions, highlight the importance of methodological rigor, and open doors for new understanding and treatment of mental health disorders. The conversation exemplifies the modern scientific process: guided by hypotheses, embracing surprise, and always tuned to the complexity of the brain’s inner workings.

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales using automation, analytics and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access better data across the business. The result?

[B]

Less time spent on operations, more time

[A]

connecting brands with the moments and fandoms that matter most. Learn [e-mail] Spotify when you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast that's Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

[B]

For scientific american science quickly. I'm rachel feltman. Today we're back with another one of SIAM's 2026 Young American Scientists. This group of groundbreaking researchers represent the future of science, technology and medicine. One of those honorees is Kale Machado Costa, an assistant professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He studies how learning works on a neurological level. Thanks so much for coming on to chat with us today.

[C]

This is my great pleasure.

[B]

Before we get into the subject of your research, specifically, I have to ask if you would tell me why you describe yourself as slightly cursed.

[C]

Over the course of my career, there have been only very few instances where I have made a prediction, right? I have a hypothesis, I made a prediction, and my prediction actually turned out to be correct. Almost every single time when I make a prediction and I do the experiments, I get the opposite results. Or something that was entirely unexpected, not even in the realm of my imagination at the time. That's why I facetiously called it a curse. But actually, it's also a blessing because it means that my career has been very exciting, at least from my perspective. There's always something new at the end of every experiment.

[B]

Yeah, well, and I think that's so interesting because some laypeople who are, you know, maybe familiar with scientific findings, but not so much the process of the scientific method might hear that and think, well, he must not think he's very good at doing science. But it sounds like it actually facilitates you being really excellent at doing science. Could you tell us more about how it informs your approach to research?

[C]

Well, of course. So one of the Ways that it strongly affects my approach to research and that I tell everyone in my lab, is that you should always start a project, start an idea with a hypothesis, with a prediction. And that's very important because if your prediction is wrong, you still have an informative result. Right. Many of the times you can start a project with purely exploratory aims, and there are some times where that is very much warranted and necessary. You will not know when you've actually supported or refuted a particular hypothesis. So having a very strong, very specific prediction at the onset of your experiment really, really helps you achieve not only a publishable, but really an informative, a significant result. I mean, for me, if I didn't have that, most of my projects would have ended a dismal failure. I mean, most of them still do, in a way. There's always no experiments that fail for multiple reasons. That's part of the scientific process. But it would have been even worse, let's put it that way.

[B]

Yeah, well, in one of the instances where things didn't go quite right, I would love to hear more about this. You know, you actually uncovered some issues with a very common model species that perhaps other scientists should be aware of.

[C]

Yes, this was a very interesting case towards like the last quarter of my PhD. So I was using this very common, probably one of the most used transgenic lines in neuroscience research, DAT cream mice. These mice, they allow us to do genetic manipulation, specifically in dopamine neurons, so neurons that express this protein called dat, the dopamine transporter. So they're standardly used all across my field. Now, I was testing the effect of trying to knock out this particular gene. And when I ran all of my mice and I was blind to it. Right. So this is part of the rigor. You're blind to the genotype when you're in the experiments. When I was uncovered and I could actually analyze the data, I noticed that my control mice, they were acting kind of funny, they were acting weird. And that was severely affecting the conclusions that I was trying to make. And that was very puzzling. So at this point, you know, many people could say, well, this is very strange, I am going to switch, I'm going to ignore this, I'm going to do something else. But I thought that that could actually mean something important. My PhD advisor at the time was happy to indulge in my strange obsession. So I went and I dug deeper and I really tried to investigate what were the mechanisms of what I was seeing. And what I ended up discovering was that this widely used mouse line, at least in the kind of substrains and versions that we were using, they had a very particular, very strong sex dependent phenotype because the native expression of dopamine transporter was reduced, was impaired. So essentially these mice, and especially the females of these mice, they were a model of adhd, so they were hyperactive, they had lower DAT function. And what we wrote up in the paper, which actually was of one of the top 100 neuroscience papers that were in the journal that year, what we say is that, well, you really need to look into that if you're trying to see behavioral effects or any kind of effect of a particular genetic manipulation, because just that strain already has this background phenotype.

[B]

Very cool. So let's talk about your work on learning. What was kind of the prevailing school of thought on how we learn and what have you uncovered in your research?

[C]

So at the risk of using a very gross oversimplification, you can basically divide the ideas about learning or the frameworks of learning into two big groups, one big group. The idea is that when you learn about something, when you learn about an action or a cue, some event that you observe in the world, what you are learning is fundamentally how good or bad that event is, right? So the value of a particular cue, of a particular action, this means how motivationally relevant is the outcome that is associated with that particular cue or particular action. And in this big view, which in the current computational lingo is often referred as model free learning, you don't have to have a detailed representation of the world. All you need is to learn how good or bad something is to update what is called a value function. So that's one view of it. Another view is that when you explore the world, what you do is you create a representation, a simulation of the external world in your mind, right? And you learn how individual events are associated with each other. You can estimate the probability that something will happen based on what you just observed. And in this type of learning, which in the modern lingo is often called model based learning, you create a rich representation of oral. And this has multiple advantages in the sense that you can use these presentations to, to make inferences about things that actually have not happened based on what you have experienced before. While in the model free type of learning, you can only really learn, you can only make decisions based on the actual experiences that you have had. On the other hand, model free learning is much more simpler to implement, while model based learning requires a lot more energy, a lot more computational resources.

[B]

Got it. So model based learning Is essentially building an internal simulation of how reality works. And model free learning is pretty much just trial and error, where you're keeping track of what works and what doesn't. So where does your work come in? Do your findings support that two system framework or are things more complicated than that?

[C]

Now, in my work related to that field, there's two findings that I like to highlight where I recently showed that dopamine prediction errors, or dopamine signals, which have long been associated with model free learning, so it's thought to represent the difference between predicted and expected reward value. So something that is very much related to reward. I had experiments where I actually showed that dopamine signals, they actually represent prediction errors about things that don't have reward value. And in that sense, these signals, they approximate much more a model based prediction error than a model free predictionnaire. In another study, I investigated the role of an area called the orbital frontal cortex, A very interesting part of frontal cortex in humans. It's right here above the eyes. And this area had long been associated with model based learning. So there's multiple studies showing that neuronal activity in this area represent kind of like these associations between elements of the world, Especially those that are related to the execution of tasks. There has been a rather influential hypothesis that this area kind of stores this type of cognitive map presentations for the execution of tasks. So my initial hypothesis was that if you inactivated the orbital frontal cortex, this OFC area, that all model based learning would be disrupted and there would be kind of a default to a model free learning system. Right? Assuming that you have the two parallel systems in the brain, and when one can't work, you basically default to this other strategy. What I found was that not only did model based learning get kind of disrupted when you inactivated ufc, but that this effect was actually very specific. Meaning that the rats, they could still create a model of the world, but this model was confused. So essentially they built a confused, imprecise model. And so from there came our proposal that what orbital frontal cortex is doing is not necessarily mediating all of model based learning, but that is particularly important for linking specific events to each other. That when this area is not working right, you end up having confused, degraded or imprecise models. And I like to imagine that a lot of behavior can be explained or some things that we consider maladaptive behavior, including disease states, they are better explained not necessarily from like this opposition between model free and model based learning, but rather they could be the use of, of models of the world that are differentially structured right that you can imagine that we're all working based on our own interpretations or representations of the world, but that someone may have a representation that is very detailed, very accurate, very adapted to the task they're performing, while someone else may be having a representation that is not as precise, that is actually confusing different associations forming a rather distorted view of the world.

[B]

And what would the potential implications be? Both, you know, in terms of just sort of understanding human behavior, but, you know, also potential applications.

[C]

So there's a lot of possibilities there. If I start, maybe with the most fundamental implication is that maybe this dichotomy between model based and model free is a bit overblown. So maybe instead of thinking of model based versus model free, we're thinking of models of different complexity that can be deployed or differentially recruit different brain areas. I think this could have a lot of implications for understanding mental illness, right? So for example, in another project, another study that I published, I also showed that the orbital frontal cortex, this area was very important for essential actually for a process called latent inhibition. And latent inhibition is a measure of attentional filtering. Basically, how do you ignore information that is irrelevant? So we show that orbital photo is important for that. And in people with schizophrenia, they have notoriously deficit latent inhibition, right? And the idea there is that they don't filter out information efficiently. So they basically attribute relevance to almost everything that they see. So they form spurious associations that eventually lead to hallucinations and cognitive disorder. So what if we had computational tools, or at least a general framework in which we could interpret the hallucinations and kind of the cognitive deficits that we see as schizophrenia, based not necessarily on a general dysfunction of model based learning, but actually as the creation of a disordered model that has its own particular structure, we might be better able to pinpoint what are the cognitive processes that go awry in mental illness. So this, I think is important for computational psychiatry. Another potential example is in the neuroscience of addiction or substance use disorder. So if you think that there's a general theory that thankfully I think, has fallen out of fashion, that as a consequence of substance use disorder, you have also this transition from a model based strategy to a model free strategy, right? From someone that forms and uses a detailed representation of the world versus a over prioritization of rewards and values. But you can think that actually instead of having this transition from model based model free, what you have after substances or drug abuse is the creation of a disordered model. And you can think about the importance of that because it explains for Example, the success of behavioral strategies like contingency management in the treatment of drug abuse. Right. Which is much harder to explain. If you think that you have this, let's say an over dominance of model free strategies. These are controversial topics that I'm sure a lot of my colleagues would disagree with, but it's where my thoughts are leading based on my previous work.

[B]

Very cool. And my last question is just, you know, what are some questions that you're really excited about answering in your field?

[C]

So one of the things that we are doing in my lab quite a lot is trying to understand what is the informational content of those dopamine teaching signals that I talked about before. So if it is indeed the case that dopamine signals are carrying information that is beyond, you know, reward prediction errors or beyond rewards, and it's doing something that is really more akin to a model based prediction error, then what are the dimensions of information that contribute to these signals? Another question that I'm very interested in, and this relates to a recent work that I published with Joe Azang, a fellow postdoc at the nih, where I was working with Jeffrey Schoenbaugh, my postdoctor advisor. So we found out that if you record another neuromodulator, acetylcholine, together with dopamine, that their interactions, they vary a lot depending on whether dopamine seems to be responding to something that is about reward versus processes related to motivation. So maybe part of the secret to this difference in information encoding comes from the interaction of different neuromodulators. I'm also very interested in how different neuromodulators interact in learning to try to see if that increases information capacity. And then, as I mentioned before, thinking about the orbitofrontal cortex, I am interested in trying to tease out what are the environmental properties or the conditions in which you create more detailed or simpler or more precise versus more generalized models of the world. And I think, finally, I am very interested in how all of these rather abstract computations are actually enacted by individual neurons. So while it may seem like a lot of aims, I hope it's also clear that they all center around a general question which is trying to understand what are the mechanisms, both informational and cellular and molecular, that determine what do we learn? Like what exactly do we incorporate into the brain, into our mind, when we are exposed to different events of the world?

[B]

That's all for today's episode. We'll be back on Friday with one more Young American Scientist special. This one all about surprising new questions in cancer research. For more on this year's Young American Scientists, don't forget to check out the latest issue of Scientific American. You can also head over to our YouTube channel to see video profiles of some of our winners. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Sushmita Pathek and Jeff d'. Alvisio. This episode was edited by Alex Seguiera, Marielle Issa and Erin Shattuck. Fact Check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up to date and in depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time.