Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40453150›Full record

ArticleComputational brain & behavior2025

Do Human Reinforcement Learning Models Account for Key Experimental Choice Patterns in the Iowa Gambling Task?

Sherwin Nedaei Janbesaraei, Amir Hosein Hadian Rasanan, Vahid Nejati, Jamal Amani Rad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational brain & behavior, 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

4 authors.

Sherwin Nedaei JanbesaraeiInstitute for Cognitive Sciences Studies (ICSS), Tehran, Iran.
Amir Hosein Hadian RasananDepartment of Psychology, University of Basel, Missionsstrasse 62A, 4055 Basel, Switzerland.
Vahid NejatiDepartment of Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Jamal Amani RadChoice Modelling Centre and Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Iowa gambling task (IGT) is widely used to study risky decision-making and learning from rewards and punishments. Although numerous cognitive models have been developed using reinforcement learning frameworks to investigate the processes underlying the IGT, no single model has consistently been identified as superior, largely due to the overlooked importance of model flexibility in capturing choice patterns. This study examines whether human reinforcement learning models adequately capture key experimental choice patterns observed in IGT data. Using simulation and parameter space partitioning (PSP) methods, we explored the parameter space of two recently introduced models-Outcome-Representation Learning and Value plus Sequential Exploration-alongside four traditional models. PSP, a global analysis method, investigates what patterns are relevant to the parameters' spaces of a model, thereby providing insights into model flexibility. The PSP study revealed varying potentials among candidate models to generate relevant choice patterns in IGT, suggesting that model selection may be dependent on the specific choice patterns present in a given dataset. We investigated central choice patterns and fitted all models by analyzing a comprehensive data pool (

Indexed as

Choice patternsCognitive modelingIowa gambling taskModel comparisonParameter space partitioningReinforcement learningRisky decisions

Identifiers

PMID40453150
PMCPMC12125058

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.