ArticleCogSci ... Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society (U.S.). Conference2021
Revisiting the Role of Uncertainty-Driven Exploration in a (Perceived) Non-Stationary World.
Article in CogSci ... Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society (U.S.). Conference, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing social anhedonia in a transdiagnostic sample: Insights from a computational psychiatry lens.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2024Article
- Multiple and subject-specific roles of uncertainty in reward-guided decision-making.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
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
Humans are often faced with an exploration-versus-exploitation trade-off. A commonly used paradigm, multi-armed bandit, has shown humans to exhibit an "uncertainty bonus", which combines with estimated reward to drive exploration. However, previous studies often modeled belief updating using either a Bayesian model that assumed the reward contingency to remain stationary, or a reinforcement learning model. Separately, we previously showed that human learning in the bandit task is best captured by a dynamic-belief Bayesian model. We hypothesize that the estimated uncertainty bonus may depend on which learning model is employed. Here, we re-analyze a bandit dataset using all three learning models. We find that the dynamic-belief model captures human choice behavior best, while also uncovering a much larger uncertainty bonus than the other models. More broadly, our results also emphasize the importance of an appropriate learning model, as it is crucial for correctly characterizing the processes underlying human decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34368809PMC8341546What 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.