Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35769734›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

What Is the Weather Prediction Task Good for? A New Analysis of Learning Strategies Reveals How Young Adults Solve the Task.

Emilie Bochud-Fragnière, Pamela Banta Lavenex, Pierre Lavenex

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Emilie Bochud-FragnièreLaboratory of Brain and Cognitive Development, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pamela Banta LavenexLaboratory of Brain and Cognitive Development, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pierre LavenexLaboratory of Brain and Cognitive Development, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Weather Prediction Task (WPT) was originally designed to assess probabilistic classification learning. Participants were believed to gradually acquire implicit knowledge about cue-outcome association probabilities and solve the task using a multicue strategy based on the combination of all cue-outcome probabilities. However, the cognitive processes engaged in the resolution of this task have not been firmly established, and despite conflicting results, the WPT is still commonly used to assess striatal or procedural learning capacities in various populations. Here, we tested young adults on a modified version of the WPT and performed novel analyses to decipher the learning strategies and cognitive processes that may support above chance performance. The majority of participants used a hierarchical strategy by assigning different weights to the different cues according to their level of predictability. They primarily based their responses on the presence or absence of highly predictive cues and considered less predictive cues secondarily. However, the influence of the less predictive cues was inconsistent with the use of a multicue strategy, since they did not affect choices when both highly predictive cues associated with opposite outcomes were present simultaneously. Our findings indicate that overall performance is inadequate to draw conclusions about the cognitive processes assessed by the WPT. Instead, detailed analyses of performance for the different patterns of cue-outcome associations are essential to determine the learning strategies used by participants to solve the task.

Indexed as

conditional learningexplicithippocampusimplicitmultiple-cue learningprobabilistic learningstriatum

Identifiers

PMID35769734
PMCPMC9234396

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.