Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29787566›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Influence of learning strategy on response time during complex value-based learning and choice.

Shiva Farashahi, Katherine Rowe, Zohra Aslami, Maria Ida Gobbini, Alireza Soltani

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Attentional Mechanisms for Learning Feature Combinations.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  5. Semantic Anchors Facilitate Task Encoding in Continual Learning.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

5 authors.

Shiva FarashahiDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America.
Katherine RoweDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America.
Zohra AslamiDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America.
Maria Ida GobbiniDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America.
Alireza SoltaniDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4386-8486

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurements of response time (RT) have long been used to infer neural processes underlying various cognitive functions such as working memory, attention, and decision making. However, it is currently unknown if RT is also informative about various stages of value-based choice, particularly how reward values are constructed. To investigate these questions, we analyzed the pattern of RT during a set of multi-dimensional learning and decision-making tasks that can prompt subjects to adopt different learning strategies. In our experiments, subjects could use reward feedback to directly learn reward values associated with possible choice options (object-based learning). Alternatively, they could learn reward values of options' features (e.g. color, shape) and combine these values to estimate reward values for individual options (feature-based learning). We found that RT was slower when the difference between subjects' estimates of reward probabilities for the two alternative objects on a given trial was smaller. Moreover, RT was overall faster when the preceding trial was rewarded or when the previously selected object was present. These effects, however, were mediated by an interaction between these factors such that subjects were faster when the previously selected object was present rather than absent but only after unrewarded trials. Finally, RT reflected the learning strategy (i.e. object-based or feature-based approach) adopted by the subject on a trial-by-trial basis, indicating an overall faster construction of reward value and/or value comparison during object-based learning. Altogether, these results demonstrate that the pattern of RT can be informative about how reward values are learned and constructed during complex value-based learning and decision making.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorLearningReaction TimeRewardAnticipation, PsychologicalFeedback, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleModels, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID29787566
PMCPMC5963802

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.