ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
An inductive bias for slowly changing features in human reinforcement learning.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveling up fun: learning progress, expectations, and success influence enjoyment in video games.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying goal-relevant features in novel environments is a central challenge for efficient behaviour. We asked whether humans address this challenge by relying on prior knowledge about common properties of reward-predicting features. One such property is the rate of change of features, given that behaviourally relevant processes tend to change on a slower timescale than noise. Hence, we asked whether humans are biased to learn more when task-relevant features are slow rather than fast. To test this idea, 295 human participants were asked to learn the rewards of two-dimensional bandits when either a slowly or quickly changing feature of the bandit predicted reward. Across two experiments and one preregistered replication, participants accrued more reward when a bandit's relevant feature changed slowly, and its irrelevant feature quickly, as compared to the opposite. We did not find a difference in the ability to generalise to unseen feature values between conditions. Testing how feature speed could affect learning with a set of four function approximation Kalman filter models revealed that participants had a higher learning rate for the slow feature, and adjusted their learning to both the relevance and the speed of feature changes. The larger the improvement in participants' performance for slow compared to fast bandits, the more strongly they adjusted their learning rates. These results provide evidence that human reinforcement learning favours slower features, suggesting a bias in how humans approach reward learning.
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.