ArticleNature communications2023
Neuro-computational mechanisms and individual biases in action-outcome learning under moral conflict.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretation of individual differences in computational neuroscience using a latent input approach.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Review
- Endogenous opioid receptor system mediates costly altruism in the human brain.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Connected in Bad Times and in Good Times: Empathy Induces Stable Social Closeness.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Integration of cognitive tasks into artificial general intelligence test for large models.iScience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning to predict action outcomes in morally conflicting situations is essential for social decision-making but poorly understood. Here we tested which forms of Reinforcement Learning Theory capture how participants learn to choose between self-money and other-shocks, and how they adapt to changes in contingencies. We find choices were better described by a reinforcement learning model based on the current value of separately expected outcomes than by one based on the combined historical values of past outcomes. Participants track expected values of self-money and other-shocks separately, with the substantial individual difference in preference reflected in a valuation parameter balancing their relative weight. This valuation parameter also predicted choices in an independent costly helping task. The expectations of self-money and other-shocks were biased toward the favored outcome but fMRI revealed this bias to be reflected in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex while the pain-observation network represented pain prediction errors independently of individual preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.