ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2025
Probability and rate of reinforcement in negative prediction error learning.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Trial-based theories of associative learning propose that learning is sensitive to the probability of reinforcement signaled by a conditioned stimulus (CS). Learning, however, is often sensitive to reinforcement rate rather than probability of reinforcement per trial, suggesting that temporal properties of cues may be more important than trial-based properties. In four experiments, the role of probability of reinforcement per trial was examined in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning in mice under conditions in which reinforcement rate was controlled. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the loss of conditioned responding caused by overexpectation of reinforcement. The probability of reinforcement per trial failed to affect acquisition and summation of conditioned responding and failed to affect overexpectation. It also failed to affect extinction of conditioned responding in Experiments 3 and 4. Experiments 2-4 contained nonreinforced trials in which responding at the offset of the CS could be measured. These probe trials did reveal an effect of probability of reinforcement per trial. Cues associated with 100% reinforcement elicited greater post-CS responding than cues associated with 50% reinforcement. The effect was also evident in summation trials (in Experiment 2) in which two 100% or 50% reinforced cues were presented in compound. The results show that mice learn about rate and probability information, but reinforcement rate determines anticipatory responding during the CS. The probability of reinforcement determines responding at the expected time of reinforcement. Thus, learning occurs continuously over the duration of experience and per episode of experience independent of duration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.