Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33536865›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020

Developmental Differences in Probabilistic Reversal Learning: A Computational Modeling Approach.

Eileen Oberwelland Weiss, Jana A Kruppa, Gereon R Fink, Beate Herpertz-Dahlmann, Kerstin Konrad, Martin Schulte-Rüther

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Medial Frontal Theta Reduction Impairs Rule Switching via Prediction Error.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eileen Oberwelland WeissTranslational Brain Research in Psychiatry and Neurology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Jana A KruppaTranslational Brain Research in Psychiatry and Neurology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Gereon R FinkCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Beate Herpertz-DahlmannDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Kerstin KonradCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Martin Schulte-RütherTranslational Brain Research in Psychiatry and Neurology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Aachen · DEForschungszentrum Jülich · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive flexibility helps us to navigate through our ever-changing environment and has often been examined by reversal learning paradigms. Performance in reversal learning can be modeled using computational modeling which allows for the specification of biologically plausible models to infer psychological mechanisms. Although such models are increasingly used in cognitive neuroscience, developmental approaches are still scarce. Additionally, though most reversal learning paradigms have a comparable design regarding timing and feedback contingencies, the type of feedback differs substantially between studies. The present study used hierarchical Gaussian filter modeling to investigate cognitive flexibility in reversal learning in children and adolescents and the effect of various feedback types. The results demonstrate that children make more overall errors and regressive errors (when a previously learned response rule is chosen instead of the new correct response after the initial shift to the new correct target), but less perseverative errors (when a previously learned response set continues to be used despite a reversal) adolescents. Analyses of the extracted model parameters of the winning model revealed that children seem to use new and conflicting information less readily than adolescents to update their stimulus-reward associations. Furthermore, more subclinical rigidity in everyday life (parent-ratings) is related to less explorative choice behavior during the probabilistic reversal learning task. Taken together, this study provides first-time data on the development of the underlying processes of cognitive flexibility using computational modeling.

Indexed as

cognitive flexibilitydevelopmentexecutive functioningfeedback processingreinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID33536865
PMCPMC7848134
OpenAlexW3121509441

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.