Cited by 286Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Adaptive learning under expected and unexpected uncertainty

Open access
Soltani, Alireza, Izquierdo, Alicia·2019·Nature reviews. Neuroscience

Abstract

The outcome of a decision is often uncertain, and outcomes can vary over repeated decisions. Whether decision outcomes should substantially affect behaviour and learning depends on whether they are representative of a typically experienced range of outcomes or signal a change in the reward environment. Successful learning and decision-making therefore require the ability to estimate expected uncertainty (related to the variability of outcomes) and unexpected uncertainty (related to the variability of the environment). Understanding the bases and effects of these two types of uncertainty and the interactions between them - at the computational and the neural level - is crucial for understanding adaptive learning. Here, we examine computational models and experimental findings to distil computational principles and neural mechanisms for adaptive learning under uncertainty.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41583-019-0180-y

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [30]Dayan PLT Statistical models of conditioning. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, 1998: p. 117– 123.
  2. [32]Soltani ACW; Wang XJ, Neural circuit mechanisms of value-based decision-making and reinforcement learning, in Decision Neuroscience: An Integrative Perspective, Dreher JCT, L, Editor 2017, Elsevier Academic Press: London, U.K p. 163– 222.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soltani, A., & Izquierdo, A.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
  • Soltani, Alireza
  • Izquierdo, Alicia
Venue
Nature reviews. Neuroscience
Published
2019-05-30
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
635-644
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W2946961766
Cited by
286
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 8
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA047870)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
adaptive learning, uncertainty estimation, decision-making, computational model, neural mechanisms, outcome variability, reinforcement learning
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Animals, Brain, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Learning, Nerve Net, Uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review