↓ Skip to main content

What is in the feedback? Effect of induced happiness vs. sadness on probabilistic learning with vs. without exploration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
What is in the feedback? Effect of induced happiness vs. sadness on probabilistic learning with vs. without exploration
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00584
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasmina Bakic, Rudi De Raedt, Marieke Jepma, Gilles Pourtois

Abstract

According to dominant neuropsychological theories of affect, emotions signal salience of events and in turn facilitate a wide spectrum of response options or action tendencies. Valence of an emotional experience is pivotal here, as it alters reward and punishment processing, as well as the balance between safety and risk taking, which can be translated into changes in the exploration-exploitation trade-off during reinforcement learning (RL). To test this idea, we compared the behavioral performance of three groups of participants that all completed a variant of a standard probabilistic learning task, but who differed regarding which mood state was actually induced and maintained (happy, sad or neutral). To foster a change from an exploration to an exploitation-based mode, we removed feedback information once learning was reliably established. Although changes in mood were successful, learning performance was balanced between the three groups. Critically, when focusing on exploitation-driven learning only, they did not differ either. Moreover, mood valence did not alter the learning rate or exploration per se, when titrated using complementing computational modeling. By comparing systematically these results to our previous study (Bakic et al., 2014), we found that arousal levels did differ between studies, which might account for limited modulatory effects of (positive) mood on RL in the present case. These results challenge the assumption that mood valence alone is enough to create strong shifts in the way exploitation or exploration is eventually carried out during (probabilistic) learning. In this context, we discuss the possibility that both valence and arousal are actually necessary components of the emotional mood state to yield changes in the use and exploration of incentives cues during RL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 41%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,698,802
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,845
of 7,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,535
of 284,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#98
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 284,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.