ArticlePloS one2016
Suboptimal Choice in Pigeons: Stimulus Value Predicts Choice over Frequencies.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do goldfish like to be informed?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- On the value of advanced information about delayed rewards.Animal cognition · 2024Article
- Paradoxical choice and the reinforcing value of information.Animal cognition · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Risk Behavior in Gambling Addicted and Opioid Addicted Individuals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- The role of 'jackpot' stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists.Psychopharmacology · 2018Article
- Gambling-like behavior in pigeons: 'jackpot' signals promote maladaptive risky choice.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Reinforcement learning models of risky choice and the promotion of risk-taking by losses disguised as wins in rats.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2017Article
- Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making.Behavioural brain research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pigeons have shown suboptimal gambling-like behavior when preferring a stimulus that infrequently signals reliable reinforcement over alternatives that provide greater reinforcement overall. As a mechanism for this behavior, recent research proposed that the stimulus value of alternatives with more reliable signals for reinforcement will be preferred relatively independently of their frequencies. The present study tested this hypothesis using a simplified design of a Discriminative alternative that, 50% of the time, led to either a signal for 100% reinforcement or a blackout period indicative of 0% reinforcement against a Nondiscriminative alternative that always led to a signal that predicted 50% reinforcement. Pigeons showed a strong preference for the Discriminative alternative that remained despite reducing the frequency of the signal for reinforcement in subsequent phases to 25% and then 12.5%. In Experiment 2, using the original design of Experiment 1, the stimulus following choice of the Nondiscriminative alternative was increased to 75% and then to 100%. Results showed that preference for the Discriminative alternative decreased only when the signals for reinforcement for the two alternatives predicted the same probability of reinforcement. The ability of several models to predict this behavior are discussed, but the terminal link stimulus value offers the most parsimonious account of this suboptimal behavior.
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.