ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2017
Reinforcement learning models of risky choice and the promotion of risk-taking by losses disguised as wins in rats.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Material hardship, not household income, predicts impaired punishment learning: a computational reinforcement learning perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Medial entorhinal cortex mediates learning of context-dependent interval timing behavior.Nature neuroscience · 2024Article
- Prior experience modifies acquisition trajectories via response-strategy sampling.Animal cognition · 2023Article
- Translating concepts of risk and loss in rodent models of gambling and the limitations for clinical applications.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2020Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Animal Models of Gambling-like Behavior.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2020Article
- The role of 'jackpot' stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists.Psychopharmacology · 2018Article
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
Risky decisions are inherently characterized by the potential to receive gains or incur losses, and these outcomes have distinct effects on subsequent decision-making. One important factor is that individuals engage in loss-chasing, in which the reception of a loss is followed by relatively increased risk-taking. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of loss-chasing are poorly understood, despite the potential importance for understanding pathological choice behavior. The goal of the present experiment was to illuminate the mechanisms governing individual differences in loss-chasing and risky-choice behaviors. Rats chose between a low-uncertainty outcome that always delivered a variable amount of reward and a high-uncertainty outcome that probabilistically delivered reward. Loss-processing and loss-chasing were assessed in the context of losses disguised as wins (LDWs), which are loss outcomes that are presented along with gain-related stimuli. LDWs have been suggested to interfere with adaptive decision-making in humans and thus potentially increase loss-making. Here, the rats presented with LDWs were riskier, in that they made more choices for the high-uncertainty outcome. A series of nonlinear models were fit to individual rats' data to elucidate the possible psychological mechanisms that best account for individual differences in high-uncertainty choices and loss-chasing behaviors. The models suggested that the rats presented with LDWs were more prone to showing a stay bias following high-uncertainty outcomes compared to rats not presented with LDWs. These results collectively suggest that LDWs acquire conditioned reinforcement properties that encourage continued risk-taking and increase loss-chasing following previous high-risk decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.