Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24647659›Full record

ReviewCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2014

Model-based and model-free Pavlovian reward learning: revaluation, revision, and revelation.

Peter Dayan, Kent C Berridge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

157 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. How childhood adversity affects components of decision making.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Phasic dopamine encodes persistent attraction to reward cues.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  15. GWAS for behavioral traits in golden retrievers identifies genes implicated in human temperament, mental health, and cognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The reward positivity is insensitive to reinforcer devaluation.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

97 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter DayanGatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, London, UK, dayan@gatsby.ucl.ac.uk.
Kent C Berridge

Funding

Affective neuroscience of taste reactivityR01MH063649 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BERRIDGE, KENT C. · 2002 to 2024
$7.8M
Cue-triggered Reward SeekingR01DA015188 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BERRIDGE, KENT C. · 2003 to 2021
$4.9M
NIDA NIH HHS DA015188NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA015188NIMH NIH HHS MH63649NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH063649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence supports at least two methods for learning about reward and punishment and making predictions for guiding actions. One method, called model-free, progressively acquires cached estimates of the long-run values of circumstances and actions from retrospective experience. The other method, called model-based, uses representations of the environment, expectations, and prospective calculations to make cognitive predictions of future value. Extensive attention has been paid to both methods in computational analyses of instrumental learning. By contrast, although a full computational analysis has been lacking, Pavlovian learning and prediction has typically been presumed to be solely model-free. Here, we revise that presumption and review compelling evidence from Pavlovian revaluation experiments showing that Pavlovian predictions can involve their own form of model-based evaluation. In model-based Pavlovian evaluation, prevailing states of the body and brain influence value computations, and thereby produce powerful incentive motivations that can sometimes be quite new. We consider the consequences of this revised Pavlovian view for the computational landscape of prediction, response, and choice. We also revisit differences between Pavlovian and instrumental learning in the control of incentive motivation.

Indexed as

Decision MakingModels, PsychologicalRewardBrainComputer SimulationConditioning, ClassicalConditioning, OperantHumans

Identifiers

PMID24647659
PMCPMC4074442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.