ArticlePLOS digital health2023
Reliability of gamified reinforcement learning in densely sampled longitudinal assessments.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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.
- tVNS and obesity-related inflammation: a prospective sham-controlled randomized crossover study protocol.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Recurrent Neural Network Exploration Strategies During Reinforcement Learning Depend on Network Capacity.Computational brain & behavior · 2026Article
- Glucose levels are associated with mood, but the association is mediated by ratings of metabolic state.EBioMedicine · 2026Observational
- Does the reliability of computational models truly improve with hierarchical modeling? Some recommendations and considerations for the assessment of model parameter reliability : Reliability of computational model parameters.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reinforcement learning is a core facet of motivation and alterations have been associated with various mental disorders. To build better models of individual learning, repeated measurement of value-based decision-making is crucial. However, the focus on lab-based assessment of reward learning has limited the number of measurements and the test-retest reliability of many decision-related parameters is therefore unknown. In this paper, we present an open-source cross-platform application Influenca that provides a novel reward learning task complemented by ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of current mental and physiological states for repeated assessment over weeks. In this task, players have to identify the most effective medication by integrating reward values with changing probabilities to win (according to random Gaussian walks). Participants can complete up to 31 runs with 150 trials each. To encourage replay, in-game screens provide feedback on the progress. Using an initial validation sample of 384 players (9729 runs), we found that reinforcement learning parameters such as the learning rate and reward sensitivity show poor to fair intra-class correlations (ICC: 0.22-0.53), indicating substantial within- and between-subject variance. Notably, items assessing the psychological state showed comparable ICCs as reinforcement learning parameters. To conclude, our innovative and openly customizable app framework provides a gamified task that optimizes repeated assessments of reward learning to better quantify intra- and inter-individual differences in value-based decision-making over time.
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.