Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39787073›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Multifaceted confidence in exploratory choice.

Oleg Solopchuk, Peter Dayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Oleg SolopchukDepartment of Computational Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9688-2065
Peter DayanDepartment of Computational Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our choices are typically accompanied by a feeling of confidence-an internal estimate that they are correct. Correctness, however, depends on our goals. For example, exploration-exploitation problems entail a tension between short- and long-term goals: finding out about the value of one option could mean foregoing another option that is apparently more rewarding. Here, we hypothesised that after making an exploratory choice that involves sacrificing an immediate gain, subjects will be confident that they chose a better option for long-term rewards, but not confident that it was a better option for immediate reward. We asked 250 subjects across 2 experiments to perform a varying-horizon two-arm bandits task, in which we asked them to rate their confidence that their choice would lead to more immediate, or more total reward. Confirming previous studies, we found a significant increase in exploration with increasing trial horizon, but, contrary to our predictions, we found no difference between confidence in immediate or total reward. This dissociation is further evidence for a separation in the mechanisms involved in choices and confidence judgements.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorRewardAdolescentAdultExploratory BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39787073
PMCPMC11717297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.