Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31256220›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2019

Relative insensitivity to time-out punishments induced by win-paired cues in a rat gambling task.

Angela J Langdon, Brett A Hathaway, Samuel Zorowitz, Cailean B W Harris, Catharine A Winstanley

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Statistical power and false positive rates for interdependent outcomes are strongly influenced by test type: Implications for behavioral neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Article
  6. DThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Understanding Addiction Using Animal Models.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Angela J LangdonPrinceton Neuroscience Institute and Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA. alangdon@princeton.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4742-6976
Brett A HathawayDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Samuel ZorowitzPrinceton Neuroscience Institute and Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA.
Cailean B W HarrisDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Catharine A WinstanleyPrinceton Neuroscience Institute and Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA. cwinstanley@psych.ubc.ca.
University of British Columbia · CAPrinceton University · US

Funding

Orbitofrontal cortex as a cognitive map of task statesR01DA042065 · NIDA · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI NIV, YAEL · 2016 to 2020
$1.8M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationalePairing rewarding outcomes with audiovisual cues in simulated gambling games increases risky choice in both humans and rats. However, the cognitive mechanism through which this sensory enhancement biases decision-making is unknown.

objectivesTo assess the computational mechanisms that promote risky choice during gambling, we applied a series of reinforcement learning models to a large dataset of choices acquired from rats as they each performed one of two variants of a rat gambling task (rGT), in which rewards on "win" trials were delivered either with or without salient audiovisual cues.

methodsWe used a sampling technique based on Markov chain Monte Carlo to obtain posterior estimates of model parameters for a series of RL models of increasing complexity, in order to assess the relative contribution of learning about positive and negative outcomes to the latent valuation of each choice option on the cued and uncued rGT.

resultsRats which develop a preference for the risky options on the rGT substantially down-weight the equivalent cost of the time-out punishments during these tasks. For each model tested, the reduction in learning from the negative time-outs correlated with the degree of risk preference in individual rats. We found no apparent relationship between risk preference and the parameters that govern learning from the positive rewards.

conclusionsThe emergence of risk-preferring choice on the rGT derives from a relative insensitivity to the cost of the time-out punishments, as opposed to a relative hypersensitivity to rewards. This hyposensitivity to punishment is more likely to be induced in individual rats by the addition of salient audiovisual cues to rewards delivered on win trials.

Indexed as

CuesRewardAnimalsChoice BehaviorConditioning, OperantDecision MakingGamblingHumansMalePunishmentRatsRats, Long-EvansReinforcement, PsychologyTime FactorsComputational modelingDecision-makingGamblingIndividual differencesRewardRisk

Identifiers

PMID31256220
PMCPMC7388589
OpenAlexW2954675172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.