Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31231252›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2019

Learning From Loss After Risk: Dissociating Reward Pursuit and Reward Valuation in a Naturalistic Foraging Task.

Samantha V Abram, A David Redish, Angus W MacDonald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Samantha V AbramDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
A David RedishDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Angus W MacDonaldDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Funding

Relating episodic memory and episodic future thinking in hippocampusR01MH080318 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI REDISH, A DAVID · 2008 to 2020
$3.7M
The covert expectation of reward during deliberationR01DA030672 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI REDISH, A DAVID · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
Translating from Rats to Humans: A Human Foraging Model of Decision-MakingF31DA040335 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI ABRAM, SAMANTHA · 2015 to 2016
$76k
NIDA NIH HHS F31 DA040335NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA030672NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH080318
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental feature of addiction is continued use despite high-cost losses. One possible driver of this feature is a dissociation between reward pursuit and reward valuation. To test for this dissociation, we employed a foraging paradigm with real-time delays and video rewards. Subjects made stay/skip choices on risky and non-risky offers; risky losses were operationalized as receipt of the longer delay after accepting a risky deal. We found that reward likability following risky losses predicted reward pursuit (i.e., subsequent choices), while there was no effect on reward valuation or reward pursuit in the absence of such losses. Individuals with high trait externalizing, who may be vulnerable to addiction, showed a dissociation between these phenomena: they liked videos more after risky losses but showed no decrease in choosing to stay on subsequent risky offers. This suggests that the inability to learn from mistakes is a potential component of risk for addiction.

Indexed as

decision-makingexternalizingforagingregretrisk

Identifiers

PMID31231252
PMCPMC6561235

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.