ArticleJournal of cognition2026
The Impact of Prior Beliefs about Volatility on Adaptive Behavior.
Article in Journal of cognition, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans adapt to environmental changes by balancing empirical observations with prior beliefs and evaluating if unexpected events indicate a true change. The specific factors that govern updating behavior in dynamic environments remain to be elucidated. We here examined how prior beliefs about environmental volatility affect updating of cue-target contingencies, particularly when observations violate these beliefs. Thirty-two participants completed two versions of a probabilistic reversal-learning task, in which auditory cues signaled the location of a subsequent visual target stimulus. In a reactive task version, participants indicated the target location after its appearance; in a predictive task version, they predicted the target's location based on the cue information. Cue-target contingencies either remained stable or reversed once within a block, thereby creating a stable and a reversal environment. Before each block, participants received either true or false information about volatility, i.e., about whether the cue-target contingency would remain stable or change. We analyzed reaction times (reactive task) and choices (predictive task) with model-free measures and a Rescorla-Wagner learning model. Participants generally adapted to the contingency changes in both tasks. In the reactive task, prior beliefs had no significant effect. In the predictive task, believing that a reversal environment was stable reduced learning rates. In stable environments, falsely believing the environment contained a reversal increased decision noise, reduced accuracy and increased choice variability. These findings demonstrate that prior beliefs about volatility shape updating in response to task demands and environmental structure.
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.