ArticleLearning & behavior2020
Outcome expectancy and suboptimal risky choice in nonhuman primates.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preferences for pitch sequence complexity are consistent with an inverted U-shape in humans and parrots.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Human Behavior in Suboptimal Choice Tasks: Defining Optimality.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- Human Choice Predicted by Obtained Reinforcers, Not by Reinforcement Predictors.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animals will favor a risky option when a stimulus signaling reward bridges the choice and the outcome. The present experiments investigated signal-induced risky choices and reward-outcome expectations in rhesus and capuchin monkeys. Risky choice was assessed by preference for a large-probabilistic reward over a modest-certain reward. Outcome expectancy was assessed by providing a truncation-response to shorten the delay period. In Experiment 1 both species generally favored the risky option compared to a safe option when the outcomes were signaled and generally shortened the delays except when a signaled-loss stimulus was presented. The use of the delay-truncation response suggested that the monkeys were sensitive to the information conveyed by the stimulus. Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to investigate whether the delay-truncation response used by capuchin monkeys was strategically used reflecting explicit decision-making versus a conditioned response to reward stimuli. A perceptual judgment task was included and the selective use of the delay-truncation response on unsignaled correct trials may suggest the involvement of metacognitive processes. The capuchin monkeys generally truncated the delays except under conditions where reward would not be expected (risky-loss or incorrect-judgment). When the outcomes were unsignaled during the delay some capuchin monkeys were less likely to truncate the delay following an incorrect task response. Overall, the monkeys: (1) made more risky choices when the outcomes were signaled - consistent with gambling-like behavior. (2) selectively truncated the unsignaled delays when rewards could be anticipated (even when metacognitive-like awareness guided anticipation) - suggesting that delay truncation responses reflect explicit outcome expectancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.