Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29694374›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Answering hastily retards learning.

Yosuke Yawata, Kenichi Makino, Yuji Ikegaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Yosuke YawataGraduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenichi MakinoGraduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuji IkegayaGraduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2260-8191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Appropriate decisions involve at least two aspects: the speed of the decision and the correctness of the decision. Although a quick and correct decision is generally believed to work favorably, these two aspects may be interdependent in terms of overall task performance. In this study, we scrutinized learning behaviors in an operant task in which rats were required to poke their noses into either of two holes by referring to a light cue. All 22 rats reached the learning criterion, an 80% correct rate, within 4 days of testing, but they were diverse in the number of sessions spent to reach the learning criterion. Individual analyses revealed that the mean latency for responding was negatively correlated with the number of sessions until learning, suggesting that the rats that responded more rapidly to the cues learned the task more slowly. For individual trials, the mean latency for responding in correct trials (LC) was significantly longer than that in incorrect trials (LI), suggesting that, on average, long deliberation times led to correct answers in the trials. The success ratio before learning was not correlated with the learning speed. Thus, deliberative decision-making, rather than overall correctness, is critical for learning.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningReaction TimeAnimalsMalePsychological TestsRats, Sprague-Dawley

Identifiers

PMID29694374
PMCPMC5918621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.