ArticleOxford open neuroscience2026
Sex differences in task engagement and lapse rate during reward learning.
Article in Oxford open neuroscience, 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.
- Stage-Dependent Effects of "Too Little and Too Much" Medial Prefrontal Activity on Reversal Learning in Rats: Functional Inhibition Impairs Early, Whereas Neural Disinhibition Impairs Late Reversals.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our understanding of sex differences in reward learning has been limited due to the predominant study of males. Here, we evaluated sex differences in flexible learning in two domains: the learning of stimulus- and action-based associations and their reversals. During action-based learning, rats selected between two identical visual stimuli presented on a touchscreen, where the spatial location predicted a higher probability of reward. For stimulus-based learning, rats chose between two distinct visual stimuli presented in pseudorandom spatial locations, one of which was associated with a higher probability of reward. Reversal phases involved switching reward contingency between the two actions or stimuli. We found that females did not differ in their discrimination or reversal learning accuracy compared to males, yet they collected fewer rewards and were more likely to omit trials than males in both domains. To gain a detailed understanding of differences across conditions, we modeled animals' trial-by-trial choices using reinforcement learning (RL) models and examined their steady-state behavior to capture transitions between distinct behavioral states. Although the estimated parameters of the best-fitting RL model revealed some sex differences, the model that incorporated transitions between different behavioral states provided a better overall fit to the data. This model also revealed that across all reversal phases, females exhibited a higher transition-specific lapse rate than males, indicating greater task disengagement once there was no need for further learning. Together, our fine-grained analysis of behavior adds to a growing literature on sex differences in flexible reward learning.
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.