ArticleMolecular psychiatry2026
Computational mechanisms of learning and forgetting differentiate affective and substance use disorders.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding mechanisms of voluntary engagement of mental effort using active inference.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Depression and anxiety are common, highly co-morbid conditions associated with maladaptive learning and decision-making processes. While the computational mechanisms underlying these deficits have received growing attention, the transdiagnostic vs. diagnosis-specific nature of these mechanisms remains insufficiently characterized. In this discovery-focused study, we aim to better characterize these mechanisms and generate novel hypotheses. To do so, we employed a commonly used, domain-general decision-making task, combined with computational models of learning, to assess differences in patterns of choice and reaction times in individuals with affective disorders (iADs; i.e., depression with or without co-morbid anxiety; N = 168 and 74, respectively). To establish diagnostic specificity, we further incorporated data from individuals with substance use disorders (iSUDs; N = 147) and healthy comparisons (HCs; N = 54). Computational modeling afforded separate measures of learning and forgetting rates, among other parameters. Bayesian analyses indicated that forgetting rates (reflecting recency bias) were elevated in both iADs and iSUDs compared to HCs (posterior probabilities [pp] = 0.99 and 1, respectively). In contrast, iADs showed faster learning rates for negative outcomes than iSUDs (pp = 0.98), but they did not differ from HCs. Reaction times in iSUDs also showed less sensitivity to uncertainty than both iADs and HCs using model-based metrics. Finally, exploratory dimensional analyses suggested possible links between learning rates for negative outcomes and early adversity. These findings demonstrate two model-based metrics that differentiate iADs from iSUDs (learning from negative outcomes and sensitivity to uncertainty) as well as a third metric (forgetting rate) that appears transdiagnostic, differentiating both disorders from HCs. This pattern of results points to distinct cognitive mechanisms that could inform disease models for each disorder and paves the way for future work investigating their potential clinical utility.
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.