Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33006121›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021

Differing effects of gain and loss feedback on rule-based and information-integration category learning.

Zhiya Liu, Yitao Zhang, Ding Ma, Qunfang Xu, Carol A Seger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Zhiya LiuKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 55 Zhongshan Avenue West, Guangzhou, 510631, China.
Yitao ZhangKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 55 Zhongshan Avenue West, Guangzhou, 510631, China.
Ding MaKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 55 Zhongshan Avenue West, Guangzhou, 510631, China.
Qunfang XuKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 55 Zhongshan Avenue West, Guangzhou, 510631, China.
Carol A SegerKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 55 Zhongshan Avenue West, Guangzhou, 510631, China. Carol.Seger@colostate.edu.

Funding

Key Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, MOE 16JJD880025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although most category-learning studies use feedback for training, little attention has been paid to how individuals use feedback value and framing of feedback as gains or losses to support learning. We compared learning of rule-based (RB) and information-integration (II) categories with point-valued feedback in which participants gained or lost higher point values for more difficult category members (those closer to the decision bound). We implemented point-valued feedback in four different conditions: Gain (earn points for correct answers), Loss (lose points for incorrect answers), Gain+Loss (earn points for correct answers and lose points for incorrect answers), and Control (accuracy feedback only without point gain or loss). Participants were trained until they reached criterion. Overall, point-valued feedback led to better learning than control conditions. However, the patterns differed across category-learning tasks. In the II task participants reached learning criterion fastest when they received both Gains and Losses. This is consistent with the reliance of II learning on reinforcement-based mechanisms and research showing common coding of gains and losses in neural regions underlying II learning. In contrast, in the RB task, participants reached criterion most rapidly when they received either Gains or Losses, but not both Gains and Losses together. The relative impairment in the Gain+Loss condition in RB learning may be due to conflicting executive function demands for interpreting and using the separate Gain and Loss information, and is consistent with reliance of RB learning on explicit hypothesis-testing mechanisms.

Indexed as

AdultConcept FormationExecutive FunctionFeedback, PsychologicalFemaleHumansLearningMaleReinforcement, PsychologyYoung AdultCategory learningFeedbackInformation integrationRule-based

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.