Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36699538›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Model-based experimental manipulation of probabilistic behavior in interpretable behavioral latent variable models.

Janine Thome, Mathieu Pinger, Daniel Durstewitz, Wolfgang H Sommer, Peter Kirsch, Georgia Koppe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A control theoretic approach to evaluate and inform ecological momentary interventions.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Janine ThomeDepartment of Theoretical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Mathieu PingerDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Daniel DurstewitzDepartment of Theoretical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Wolfgang H SommerInstitute of Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Peter KirschDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Georgia KoppeDepartment of Theoretical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Interpretable latent variable models that probabilistically link behavioral observations to an underlying latent process have increasingly been used to draw inferences on cognition from observed behavior. The latent process usually connects experimental variables to cognitive computation. While such models provide important insights into the latent processes generating behavior, one important aspect has often been overlooked. They may also be used to generate precise and falsifiable behavioral predictions as a function of the modeled experimental variables. In doing so, they pinpoint how experimental conditions must be designed to elicit desired behavior and generate adaptive experiments. Methods: These ideas are exemplified on the process of delay discounting (DD). After inferring DD models from behavior on a typical DD task, the models are leveraged to generate a second adaptive DD task. Experimental trials in this task are designed to elicit 9 graded behavioral discounting probabilities across participants. Models are then validated and contrasted to competing models in the field by assessing the ouf-of-sample prediction error. Results: The proposed framework induces discounting probabilities on nine levels. In contrast to several alternative models, the applied model exhibits high validity as indicated by a comparably low prediction error. We also report evidence for inter-individual differences with respect to the most suitable models underlying behavior. Finally, we outline how to adapt the proposed method to the investigation of other cognitive processes including reinforcement learning. Discussion: Inducing graded behavioral frequencies with the proposed framework may help to highly resolve the underlying cognitive construct and associated neuronal substrates.

Indexed as

adaptive designbehavioral modelcomputational modelscomputational psychiatrydelay discountingdesign optimizationhomogenizing behaviorreward discounting

Identifiers

PMID36699538
PMCPMC9868576

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.