Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40424292›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2025

Stimulus uncertainty and relative reward rates determine adaptive responding in perceptual decision-making.

Luis de la Cuesta-Ferrer, Christina Koß, Sarah Starosta, Nils Kasties, Daniel Lengersdorf, Frank Jäkel, Maik C Stüttgen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Luis de la Cuesta-FerrerInstitute of Pathophysiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Christina KoßCentre for Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1694-5653
Sarah StarostaDepartment of Biopsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Nils KastiesDepartment of Biopsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Daniel LengersdorfDepartment of Biopsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Frank JäkelCentre for Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1355-7663
Maik C StüttgenInstitute of Pathophysiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7031-262X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In dynamic environments, animals must select actions based on sensory input as well as expected positive and negative consequences. This type of behavior is typically studied using perceptual decision making (PDM) tasks. The arguably most influential framework for describing the cognitive processes underlying PDM is signal detection theory (SDT). One central assumption of SDT is that observers make perceptual decisions by comparing sensory evidence to a static decision criterion. However, mounting evidence suggests that the criterion is in fact highly dynamic and that observers adjust it flexibly according to task demands. Nevertheless, the mechanisms by which observers integrate stimulus and reward information for adaptive criterion learning remain not well understood. Here, we systematically investigated the factors influencing criterion setting at the single-trial level. To that end, we first specified three SDT-based models that learn either from reward, reward omission, or both. Next, by concomitantly manipulating stimulus and reward probabilities, we constructed experimental conditions in which these models make divergent predictions. Finally, we subjected rats and pigeons to a PDM task comprising these conditions. We find that subjects adopted decision criteria that maximize total reward in all experimental conditions. Detailed behavioral analyses reveal that criterion learning is driven by the integration of rewards, not reward omissions, and that reward integration is influenced by two additional factors: first, the degree of stimulus uncertainty, and second, the difference in the relative reward rates (rather than the absolute reward rates) between the choice alternatives. A model incorporating these factors accounts well for criterion dynamics across experimental conditions for both species and links signal detection theory to a learning mechanism operating at the level of single trials which, in the steady state, produces behavior similar to the matching law, a central tenet of learning theory.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRewardAnimalsBehavior, AnimalColumbidaeComputational BiologyLearningMaleRatsSignal Detection, PsychologicalUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40424292
PMCPMC12143545

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.