↓ Skip to main content

Separating the effect of reward from corrective feedback during learning in patients with Parkinson’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Separating the effect of reward from corrective feedback during learning in patients with Parkinson’s disease
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13415-017-0505-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Freedberg, Jonathan Schacherer, Kuan-Hua Chen, Ergun Y. Uc, Nandakumar S. Narayanan, Eliot Hazeltine

Abstract

Parkinson's disease (PD) is associated with procedural learning deficits. Nonetheless, studies have demonstrated that reward-related learning is comparable between patients with PD and controls (Bódi et al., Brain, 132(9), 2385-2395, 2009; Frank, Seeberger, & O'Reilly, Science, 306(5703), 1940-1943, 2004; Palminteri et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(45), 19179-19184, 2009). However, because these studies do not separate the effect of reward from the effect of practice, it is difficult to determine whether the effect of reward on learning is distinct from the effect of corrective feedback on learning. Thus, it is unknown whether these group differences in learning are due to reward processing or learning in general. Here, we compared the performance of medicated PD patients to demographically matched healthy controls (HCs) on a task where the effect of reward can be examined separately from the effect of practice. We found that patients with PD showed significantly less reward-related learning improvements compared to HCs. In addition, stronger learning of rewarded associations over unrewarded associations was significantly correlated with smaller skin-conductance responses for HCs but not PD patients. These results demonstrate that when separating the effect of reward from the effect of corrective feedback, PD patients do not benefit from reward.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 34%
Student > Master 4 11%
Unspecified 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 26%
Neuroscience 8 23%
Unspecified 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#19,512,854
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#846
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,320
of 313,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.