ReviewNeurobiology of learning and memory2016
Mini-review: Prediction errors, attention and associative learning.
Review in Neurobiology of learning and memory, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic salience as a basis for behavioural meta-malleability.Royal Society open science · 2026Review
- A Theoretical Framework for Studying the Phenomenon of Gaslighting.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026Review
- A brief history of dopamine prediction errors.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Review
- Reduction in Reward-Driven Behavior Depends on the Basolateral But Not Central Nucleus of the Amygdala in Female Rats.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- ACC representations of reward-driven motivation over hierarchically-organized behavior.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- Abstract rule learning promotes cognitive flexibility in complex environments across species.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Empirically Integrating the Evidence for Different Predictive Coding Components Using Auditory False Perception.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- An associative account of collective learning.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Pavlovian safety learning: An integrative theoretical review.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Computational processes of simultaneous learning of stochasticity and volatility in humans.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Conflict Dynamics of Post-Retrieval Extinction: A Comparative Analysis of Unconditional and Conditional Reminders Using Skin Conductance Responses and EEG.Brain topography · 2024Article
- Forward and backward blocking in statistical learning.PloS one · 2024Article
- Value-driven attention and associative learning models: a computational simulation analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Review
- Role of the locus coeruleus and basal forebrain in arousal and attention.Brain research bulletin · 2022Review
- Surprise-induced enhancements in the associability of Pavlovian cues facilitate learning across behavior systems.Behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Valence biases in reinforcement learning shift across adolescence and modulate subsequent memory.eLife · 2022Article
- Cerebellum and Emotion Memory.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Editorial: Computational accounts of reinforcement learning and decision making in psychiatric disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Temporal prediction error triggers amygdala-dependent memory updating in appetitive operant conditioning in rats.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most modern theories of associative learning emphasize a critical role for prediction error (PE, the difference between received and expected events). One class of theories, exemplified by the Rescorla-Wagner (1972) model, asserts that PE determines the effectiveness of the reinforcer or unconditioned stimulus (US): surprising reinforcers are more effective than expected ones. A second class, represented by the Pearce-Hall (1980) model, argues that PE determines the associability of conditioned stimuli (CSs), the rate at which they may enter into new learning: the surprising delivery or omission of a reinforcer enhances subsequent processing of the CSs that were present when PE was induced. In this mini-review we describe evidence, mostly from our laboratory, for PE-induced changes in the associability of both CSs and USs, and the brain systems involved in the coding, storage and retrieval of these altered associability values. This evidence favors a number of modifications to behavioral models of how PE influences event processing, and suggests the involvement of widespread brain systems in animals' responses to PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.