Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40736588›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2025

Further examining how animals weigh conflicting information about reward sources over time.

Jack Van Allsburg, Timothy A Shahan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal 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.

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

2 authors.

Jack Van AllsburgDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA. jack.vanallsburg@usu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9446-7184
Timothy A ShahanDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6338-8714

Funding

Basic and Clinical Studies in Reinforcing Positive Behaviors in Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesR01HD093734 · NICHD · UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Timothy A Shahan · 2018 to 2026
$5.2M
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development R01HD093734NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD093734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spontaneous recovery of choice is a behavioral phenomenon where a delay period (without new experience) elicits the recovery of a preference consistent with a previous distribution of rewards, rather than the most recently experienced distribution of rewards. On short timescales (< 48 h), the occurrence of spontaneous recovery of choice has been effectively predicted by the Temporal Weighting Rule. However, previous study of this phenomenon over longer timescales (> 48 h) has found results inconsistent with model predictions. The present experiments investigated three potential explanations for these results: (1.) whether time's passage alone causes animals to revert to random exploratory behavior; (2.) whether time's effect on behavior is moderated by experience of volatility in rewards during training; and (3.) whether a drift toward random exploratory behavior produced by time's passage can be distinguished from the effect of spontaneous recovery of choice. Subjects experienced varied reward conditions in a concurrent choice procedure before preference between options was evaluated at various test delays. Obtained results ruled out these first two explanations, but were inconclusive in distinguishing the effects of a drift toward random exploratory behavior from the effect of spontaneous recovery of choice. Limitations and directions for further investigation are discussed.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorRewardAnimalsExploratory BehaviorFemaleMaleTime FactorsChoiceConcurrent schedulesDynamic averagingSpontaneous recoveryTemporal weighting rule

Identifiers

PMID40736588
PMCPMC12310909

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.