↓ Skip to main content

Inferring reward prediction errors in patients with schizophrenia: a dynamic reward task for reinforcement learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Inferring reward prediction errors in patients with schizophrenia: a dynamic reward task for reinforcement learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chia-Tzu Li, Wen-Sung Lai, Chih-Min Liu, Yung-Fong Hsu

Abstract

Abnormalities in the dopamine system have long been implicated in explanations of reinforcement learning and psychosis. The updated reward prediction error (RPE)-a discrepancy between the predicted and actual rewards-is thought to be encoded by dopaminergic neurons. Dysregulation of dopamine systems could alter the appraisal of stimuli and eventually lead to schizophrenia. Accordingly, the measurement of RPE provides a potential behavioral index for the evaluation of brain dopamine activity and psychotic symptoms. Here, we assess two features potentially crucial to the RPE process, namely belief formation and belief perseveration, via a probability learning task and reinforcement-learning modeling. Forty-five patients with schizophrenia [26 high-psychosis and 19 low-psychosis, based on their p1 and p3 scores in the positive-symptom subscales of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)] and 24 controls were tested in a feedback-based dynamic reward task for their RPE-related decision making. While task scores across the three groups were similar, matching law analysis revealed that the reward sensitivities of both psychosis groups were lower than that of controls. Trial-by-trial data were further fit with a reinforcement learning model using the Bayesian estimation approach. Model fitting results indicated that both psychosis groups tend to update their reward values more rapidly than controls. Moreover, among the three groups, high-psychosis patients had the lowest degree of choice perseveration. Lumping patients' data together, we also found that patients' perseveration appears to be negatively correlated (p = 0.09, trending toward significance) with their PANSS p1 + p3 scores. Our method provides an alternative for investigating reward-related learning and decision making in basic and clinical settings.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 29%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 35%
Neuroscience 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 22%
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 27 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,245,139
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,999
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,187
of 258,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 373 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 258,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 373 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.