ArticleScientific reports2024
Longitudinal changes in reinforcement learning during smoking cessation: a computational analysis using a probabilistic reward task.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probing biomarkers and clinical utility of reward learning across species using the Probabilistic Reward Task: 20 years of findings.Nature. Mental health · 2026Article
- Metabolomic and gut microbial biomarkers of smoking cessation treatment in long-term drug therapy: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Reinforcement Learning and Decision Making in Anorexia Nervosa.Current psychiatry reports · 2025Review
- Development and Piloting of Co.Ge.: A Web-Based Digital Platform for Generative and Clinical Cognitive Assessment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Reinforcement Learning in Personalized Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of Treatment Optimization Strategies.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite progress in smoking reduction in the past several decades, cigarette smoking remains a significant public health concern world-wide, with many smokers attempting but ultimately failing to maintain abstinence. However, little is known about how decision-making evolves in quitting smokers. Based on preregistered hypotheses and analysis plan ( https://osf.io/yq5th ), we examined the evolution of reinforcement learning (RL), a key component of decision-making, in smokers during acute and extended nicotine abstinence. In a longitudinal, within-subject design, we used a probabilistic reward task (PRT) to assess RL in twenty smokers who successfully refrained from smoking for at least 30 days. We evaluated changes in reward-based decision-making using signal-detection analysis and five RL models across three sessions during 30 days of nicotine abstinence. Contrary to our preregistered hypothesis, punishment sensitivity emerged as the only parameter that changed during smoking cessation. While it is plausible that some changes in task performance could be attributed to task repetition effects, we observed a clear impact of the Nicotine Withdrawal Syndrome (NWS) on RL, and a dynamic relationship between craving and reward and punishment sensitivity over time, suggesting a significant recalibration of cognitive processes during abstinence. In this context, the heightened sensitivity to negative outcomes observed at the last session (30 days after quitting) compared to the previous sessions, may be interpreted as a cognitive adaptation aimed at fostering long-term abstinence. While further studies are needed to clarify the mechanisms underlying punishment sensitivity during nicotine abstinence, these results highlight the need for personalized treatment approaches tailored to individual needs.
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.