ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Information uncertainty influences learning strategy from sequentially delayed rewards.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
When receiving a reward after a sequence of multiple events, how do we determine which event caused the reward? This problem, known as temporal credit assignment, can be difficult for humans to solve given the temporal uncertainty in the environment. Research to date has attempted to isolate dimensions of delay and reward during decision-making, but algorithmic solutions to temporal learning problems and the effect of uncertainty on learning remain underexplored. To further our understanding, we adapted a reward learning task that creates a temporal credit assignment problem by combining sequentially delayed rewards, intervening events, and varying uncertainty via the amount of information presented during feedback. Using computational modeling, two learning strategies were developed: an eligibility trace, whereby previously selected actions are updated as a function of the temporal sequence, and a tabular update, whereby only systematically related past actions (rather than unrelated intervening events) are updated. We hypothesized that reduced information uncertainty would correlate with increased use of the tabular strategy, given the model's capacity to incorporate additional feedback information. Both models effectively learned the task, and predicted choices made by participants (N = 142) as well as specific behavioral signatures of credit assignment. Consistent with our hypothesis, the tabular model outperformed the eligibility model under low information uncertainty, as evidenced by more accurate predictions of participants' behavior and an increase in tabular weight. These findings provide new insights into the mechanisms implemented by humans to solve temporal credit assignment and adapt their strategy in varying environments.
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.