Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33559232›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2021

Time elapsed between choices in a probabilistic task correlates with repeating the same decision.

Judyta Jabłońska, Łukasz Szumiec, Piotr Zieliński, Jan Rodriguez Parkitna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Judyta JabłońskaDepartment of Molecular Neuropharmacology, Maj Institute of Pharmacology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0763-2126
Łukasz SzumiecDepartment of Molecular Neuropharmacology, Maj Institute of Pharmacology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland.
Piotr ZielińskiDepartment of Structure Research of Condensed Matter, The Henryk Niewodniczański Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland.
Jan Rodriguez ParkitnaDepartment of Molecular Neuropharmacology, Maj Institute of Pharmacology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0367-2331

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reinforcement learning causes an action that yields a positive outcome more likely to be taken in the future. Here, we investigate how the time elapsed from an action affects subsequent decisions. Groups of C57BL6/J mice were housed in IntelliCages with access to water and chow ad libitum; they also had access to bottles with a reward: saccharin solution, alcohol, or a mixture of the two. The probability of receiving a reward in two of the cage corners changed between 0.9 and 0.3 every 48 hr over a period of ~33 days. As expected, in most animals, the odds of repeating a corner choice were increased if that choice was previously rewarded. Interestingly, the time elapsed from the previous choice also influenced the probability of repeating the choice, and this effect was independent of previous outcome. Behavioral data were fitted to a series of reinforcement learning models. Best fits were achieved when the reward prediction update was coupled with separate learning rates from positive and negative outcomes and additionally a "fictitious" update of the expected value of the nonselected choice. Additional inclusion of a time-dependent decay of the expected values improved the fit marginally in some cases.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorRewardAnimalsDecision MakingLearningMiceReinforcement, Psychologyalcohollearningmicereinforcementreward

Identifiers

PMID33559232
PMCPMC8248175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.