Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32875531›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2020

Robust valence-induced biases on motor response and confidence in human reinforcement learning.

Chih-Chung Ting, Stefano Palminteri, Jan B Engelmann, Maël Lebreton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Chih-Chung TingCREED, Amsterdam School of Economics (ASE), Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stefano PalminteriDépartement d'études cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France.
Jan B EngelmannCREED, Amsterdam School of Economics (ASE), Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Maël LebretonLaboratory for Behavioral Neurology and Imaging of Cognition (LabNIC), Department of Basic Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Campus Biotech, 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland. mael.lebreton@unige.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-2071-4890

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In simple instrumental-learning tasks, humans learn to seek gains and to avoid losses equally well. Yet, two effects of valence are observed. First, decisions in loss-contexts are slower. Second, loss contexts decrease individuals' confidence in their choices. Whether these two effects are two manifestations of a single mechanism or whether they can be partially dissociated is unknown. Across six experiments, we attempted to disrupt the valence-induced motor bias effects by manipulating the mapping between decisions and actions and imposing constraints on response times (RTs). Our goal was to assess the presence of the valence-induced confidence bias in the absence of the RT bias. We observed both motor and confidence biases despite our disruption attempts, establishing that the effects of valence on motor and metacognitive responses are very robust and replicable. Nonetheless, within- and between-individual inferences reveal that the confidence bias resists the disruption of the RT bias. Therefore, although concomitant in most cases, valence-induced motor and confidence biases seem to be partly dissociable. These results highlight new important mechanistic constraints that should be incorporated in learning models to jointly explain choice, reaction times and confidence.

Indexed as

LearningReinforcement, PsychologyBiasHumansMotivationReaction TimeConfidenceMeta-cognitionReinforcement-leaningValence-induced bias

Identifiers

PMID32875531
PMCPMC7716860

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.