↓ Skip to main content

The influence of trial order on learning from reward vs. punishment in a probabilistic categorization task: experimental and computational analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The influence of trial order on learning from reward vs. punishment in a probabilistic categorization task: experimental and computational analyses
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed A. Moustafa, Mark A. Gluck, Mohammad M. Herzallah, Catherine E. Myers

Abstract

Previous research has shown that trial ordering affects cognitive performance, but this has not been tested using category-learning tasks that differentiate learning from reward and punishment. Here, we tested two groups of healthy young adults using a probabilistic category learning task of reward and punishment in which there are two types of trials (reward, punishment) and three possible outcomes: (1) positive feedback for correct responses in reward trials; (2) negative feedback for incorrect responses in punishment trials; and (3) no feedback for incorrect answers in reward trials and correct answers in punishment trials. Hence, trials without feedback are ambiguous, and may represent either successful avoidance of punishment or failure to obtain reward. In Experiment 1, the first group of subjects received an intermixed task in which reward and punishment trials were presented in the same block, as a standard baseline task. In Experiment 2, a second group completed the separated task, in which reward and punishment trials were presented in separate blocks. Additionally, in order to understand the mechanisms underlying performance in the experimental conditions, we fit individual data using a Q-learning model. Results from Experiment 1 show that subjects who completed the intermixed task paradoxically valued the no-feedback outcome as a reinforcer when it occurred on reinforcement-based trials, and as a punisher when it occurred on punishment-based trials. This is supported by patterns of empirical responding, where subjects showed more win-stay behavior following an explicit reward than following an omission of punishment, and more lose-shift behavior following an explicit punisher than following an omission of reward. In Experiment 2, results showed similar performance whether subjects received reward-based or punishment-based trials first. However, when the Q-learning model was applied to these data, there were differences between subjects in the reward-first and punishment-first conditions on the relative weighting of neutral feedback. Specifically, early training on reward-based trials led to omission of reward being treated as similar to punishment, but prior training on punishment-based trials led to omission of reward being treated more neutrally. This suggests that early training on one type of trials, specifically reward-based trials, can create a bias in how neutral feedback is processed, relative to those receiving early punishment-based training or training that mixes positive and negative outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 46%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Linguistics 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,968,137
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#899
of 3,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,449
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#25
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.