ArticlePLoS computational biology2023
The shadowing effect of initial expectation on learning asymmetry.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the validity and reliability of computational phenotyping of mood.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Distinct patterns of social contagion under risk and ambiguity.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Learn how to be effective: neural and computational insights into charity efficiency learning.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence for positivity and optimism bias abounds in high-level belief updates. However, no consensus has been reached regarding whether learning asymmetries exist in more elementary forms of updates such as reinforcement learning (RL). In RL, the learning asymmetry concerns the sensitivity difference in incorporating positive and negative prediction errors (PE) into value estimation, namely the asymmetry of learning rates associated with positive and negative PEs. Although RL has been established as a canonical framework in characterizing interactions between agent and environment, the direction of learning asymmetry remains controversial. Here, we propose that part of the controversy stems from the fact that people may have different value expectations before entering the learning environment. Such a default value expectation influences how PEs are calculated and consequently biases subjects' choices. We test this hypothesis in two learning experiments with stable or varying reinforcement probabilities, across monetary gains, losses, and gain-loss mixed environments. Our results consistently support the model incorporating both asymmetric learning rates and the initial value expectation, highlighting the role of initial expectation in value updating and choice preference. Further simulation and model parameter recovery analyses confirm the unique contribution of initial value expectation in accessing learning rate asymmetry.
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.