Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40691426›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Estimation-uncertainty affects decisions with and without learning opportunities.

Kristoffer C Aberg, Levi Antle, Rony Paz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 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

3 authors.

Kristoffer C AbergDepartment of Brain Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. kc.aberg@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0970-400X
Levi AntleDepartment of Brain Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Rony PazDepartment of Brain Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. rony.paz@weizmann.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8868-216X

Funding

Israel Science Foundation (ISF) 1468/24
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivated behavior during reinforcement learning is determined by outcome expectations and their estimation-uncertainty (how frequently an option has been sampled), with the latter modulating exploration rates. However, although differences in sampling-rates are inherent to most types of reinforcement learning paradigms that confront highly rewarded options with less rewarded ones, it is unclear whether and how estimation-uncertainty lingers to affect long-term decisions without opportunities to learn or to explore. Here, we show that sampling-rates acquired during a reinforcement learning phase (with feedback) correlate with decision biases in a subsequent test phase (without feedback), independently from outcome expectations. Further, computational model-fits to behavior are improved by estimation-uncertainty, and specifically so for options with smaller sampling-rates/larger estimation-uncertainties. These results are replicated in two additional independent datasets. Our findings highlight that estimation-uncertainty is an important factor to consider when trying to understand human decision making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningReinforcement, PsychologyAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotivationRewardUncertaintyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40691426
PMCPMC12280070

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.