ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
A nonlinear relationship between prediction errors and learning rates in human reinforcement-learning.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Foraging models explain human exploration in uncertain tasks.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Associative learning impairments in unipolar and bipolar depression.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Humans forage for reward in reinforcement learning tasks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A translational perspective on the anti-anhedonic effect of ketamine and its neural underpinnings.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reinforcement-learning (RL) models have been pivotal to our understanding of how agents perform learning-based adaptions in dynamically changing environments. However, the exact nature of the relationship (e.g., linear, logarithmic etc.) between key components of RL models such as prediction errors (PEs; the difference between the agent's expectation and the actual outcome) and learning rates (a coefficient used by agents to update their beliefs about the environment) has not been studied in detail. Here, across (i) simulations, (ii) reanalyses of readily available datasets and (iii) a novel experiment, we demonstrate that the relationship between PEs and learning rates is (i) nonlinear over the PE/ learning rates space, and (ii) it can be accounted for by an exponential-logarithmic function that can transform the magnitude of PEs instantaneously to learning rates in a novel RL model. In line with the temporal predictions of this model, we show that physiological correlates of learning rates accumulate while learners observe the outcome of their choices and update their beliefs about the environment.
Indexed as
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.