ArticleCommunications psychology2025
Cognitive computational model reveals repetition bias in a sequential decision-making task.
Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Context-dependent interaction between goal-directed and habitual control under time pressure.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Sequential experience reshapes population representations in visual cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Action repetition biases choice in context-dependent decision-making.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Cognitive computational model reveals repetition bias in a sequential decision-making task.Communications psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans tend to repeat action sequences that have led to reward. Recent computational models, based on a long-standing psychological theory, suggest that action selection can also be biased by how often an action or sequence of actions was repeated before, independent of rewards. However, empirical support for such a repetition bias effect in value-based decision-making remains limited. In this study, we provide evidence of a repetition bias for action sequences using a sequential decision-making task (N = 70). Through computational modeling of choices, we demonstrate both the learning and influence of a repetition bias on human value-based decisions. Using model comparison, we find that decisions are best explained by the combined influence of goal-directed reward seeking and a tendency to repeat action sequences. Additionally, we observe significant individual differences in the strength of this repetition bias. These findings lay the groundwork for further research on the interaction between goal-directed reward seeking and the repetition of action sequences in human decision making.
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.