Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29927938›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2018

Mice learn to avoid regret.

Brian M Sweis, Mark J Thomas, A David Redish

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Deliberating on the role of dopamine.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. On the Role of Theory and Modeling in Neuroscience.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Computational validity: using computation to translate behaviours across species.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brian M SweisGraduate Program in Neuroscience & Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Mark J ThomasDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
A David RedishDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3644-9072
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008244 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI SHIMIZU, YOJI · 1988 to 2024
$13.6M
Testing hybrid theories of action-selectionR01MH112688 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI A DAVID REDISH · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
PREDOCTORAL TRAINING OF NEUROSCIENTISTST32GM008471 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI EBNER, TIMOTHY J · 1993 to 2017
$4.9M
TEEN MOTHERS INTO ADULTHOOD AND THE NEXT GENERATIONR01DA005208 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GILCHRIST, LEWAYNE D · 1987 to 2007
$3.9M
Relating episodic memory and episodic future thinking in hippocampusR01MH080318 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI REDISH, A DAVID · 2008 to 2020
$3.7M
Synaptic Plasticity in Animal Models of AddictionR01DA019666 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI THOMAS, MARK JOHN · 2006 to 2016
$3.0M
The covert expectation of reward during deliberationR01DA030672 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI REDISH, A DAVID · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
Probing Neural Circuit Plasticity in Addiction RelapseK02DA035459 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI THOMAS, MARK JOHN · 2013 to 2017
$511k
Optogenetic modulation of decision-making circuitry in mouse models of addictionF30DA043326 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI SWEIS, BRIAN MUSA · 2017 to 2020
$139k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA005208NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA019666NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA030672NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008244
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regret can be defined as the subjective experience of recognizing that one has made a mistake and that a better alternative could have been selected. The experience of regret is thought to carry negative utility. This typically takes two distinct forms: augmenting immediate postregret valuations to make up for losses, and augmenting long-term changes in decision-making strategies to avoid future instances of regret altogether. While the short-term changes in valuation have been studied in human psychology, economics, neuroscience, and even recently in nonhuman-primate and rodent neurophysiology, the latter long-term process has received far less attention, with no reports of regret avoidance in nonhuman decision-making paradigms. We trained 31 mice in a novel variant of the Restaurant Row economic decision-making task, in which mice make decisions of whether to spend time from a limited budget to achieve food rewards of varying costs (delays). Importantly, we tested mice longitudinally for 70 consecutive days, during which the task provided their only source of food. Thus, decision strategies were interdependent across both trials and days. We separated principal commitment decisions from secondary reevaluation decisions across space and time and found evidence for regret-like behaviors following change-of-mind decisions that corrected prior economically disadvantageous choices. Immediately following change-of-mind events, subsequent decisions appeared to make up for lost effort by altering willingness to wait, decision speed, and pellet consumption speed, consistent with past reports of regret in rodents. As mice were exposed to an increasingly reward-scarce environment, we found they adapted and refined distinct economic decision-making strategies over the course of weeks to maximize reinforcement rate. However, we also found that even without changes in reinforcement rate, mice transitioned from an early strategy rooted in foraging to a strategy rooted in deliberation and planning that prevented future regret-inducing change-of-mind episodes from occurring. These data suggest that mice are learning to avoid future regret, independent of and separate from reinforcement rate maximization.

Indexed as

EmotionsLearningAnimalsAvoidance LearningBehavior, AnimalChoice BehaviorDecision MakingHumansMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLModels, AnimalModels, PsychologicalReinforcement, PsychologyReward

Identifiers

PMID29927938
PMCPMC6013153
OpenAlexW2809085847

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.