The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 64 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
DYNAMIC RESPONSE-BY-RESPONSE MODELS OF MATCHING BEHAVIOR IN RHESUS MONKEYS
Open accessAbstract
We studied the choice behavior of 2 monkeys in a discrete-trial task with reinforcement contingencies similar to those Herrnstein (1961) used when he described the matching law. In each session, the monkeys experienced blocks of discrete trials at different relative-reinforcer frequencies or magnitudes with unsignalled transitions between the blocks. Steady-state data following adjustment to each transition were well characterized by the generalized matching law; response ratios undermatched reinforcer frequency ratios but matched reinforcer magnitude ratios. We modelled response-by-response behavior with linear models that used past reinforcers as well as past choices to predict the monkeys' choices on each trial. We found that more recently obtained reinforcers more strongly influenced choice behavior. Perhaps surprisingly, we also found that the monkeys' actions were influenced by the pattern of their own past choices. It was necessary to incorporate both past reinforcers and past choices in order to accurately capture steady-state behavior as well as the fluctuations during block transitions and the response-by-response patterns of behavior. Our results suggest that simple reinforcement learning models must account for the effects of past choices to accurately characterize behavior in this task, and that models with these properties provide a conceptual tool for studying how both past reinforcers and past choices are integrated by the neural systems that generate behavior.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a discrete-trial matching task with unsignalled within-session changes in reinforcer frequency or magnitude, two rhesus monkeys’ steady-state choices were well described by the generalized matching law, but response-by-response choices required a model that included both past reinforcers and past choices. The best-fitting logistic models used local histories and revealed decaying reinforcer effects plus choice-history effects that produce fix-and-sample behavior.
Key findings
- Steady-state behavior was well fit by the generalized matching law, accounting for 90% of the variance for both monkeys. Frequency conditions showed undermatching (pooled sensitivity to reinforcer frequency: Monkey H a = 0.51, SE 0.01; Monkey B a = 0.54, SE 0.01), whereas magnitude conditions showed matching or slight overmatching (pooled sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude: Monkey H b = 1.00, SE 0.02; Monkey B b = 1.22, SE 0.04).
- After unsignalled block transitions, monkeys reached 50% choice of the richer alternative in 11.4 trials (Monkey H) and 10.42 trials (Monkey B) for frequency conditions, and 11.56 trials (Monkey H) and 10.86 trials (Monkey B) for magnitude conditions. In magnitude conditions, transitions to a 3:1 ratio were faster (9.84 and 8.55 trials) than transitions to a 3:2 ratio (13.27 and 13.17 trials).
- Runlengths for the nonpreferred alternative were typically one trial (mean 1.05 trials, SD 0.09), rejecting a purely probabilistic independent-choice model and showing a fix-and-sample pattern.
- The best response-by-response models included both past reinforcers and past choices, integrating on average 14 past reinforcers and 22 past choices. More recent reinforcers more strongly influenced choice; past choices showed a negative coefficient for the last trial (alternation tendency) and positive coefficients for earlier trials (persistence tendency). Residual autocorrelations were mostly within 95% confidence intervals, while a model with only reinforcer history was inadequate.
Methods
- Two male rhesus monkeys performed a discrete-trial two-alternative eye-movement choice task with water reinforcement. Reinforcers were arranged by independent biased-coin arming probabilities with hold, without a changeover delay; within sessions, unsignalled blocks varied relative reinforcer frequency or magnitude.
- Data were 67,827 completed trials from Monkey H and 47,160 from Monkey B, collected after at least 3 months of training; aborted trials were excluded (7% for Monkey H, 6% for Monkey B).
- Steady-state data from the last 65 trials of each block were fit with the generalized matching law. Response-by-response choice was modeled with logistic regression using past reinforcers and past choices, with AIC selecting history lengths up to 50 trials; residual autocorrelation assessed model fit.
Limitations
- The paper states the statistical model is principally descriptive, and that between-subject variability precluded determining whether exponential or hyperbolic weighting better describes the reinforcer-history coefficients.
- The paper notes a misprediction: in extreme magnitude transitions, the monkeys adjusted faster than the model predicted.
- Evident from the text: only two male rhesus monkeys were studied, so generality is limited; no formal sample-size limitation is stated in the paper.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own result · 35 Not checked yet · 29 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 5 Own method · 2 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In fact, for tasks like ours, maximizing reinforcer rate is closely approximated when subjects match the proportion of choices allocated to an alternative to the proportion of reinforcers received from choosing it (Houston & McNamara, 1981; Staddon et al., 1981).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Houston & McNamara, 1981
- Partly supportedcites Staddon et al., 1981 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the Matching section (page unavailable), the paper gives an example in which the overall-maximizing choice sequence closely matches choice and reinforcement proportions. But the Discussion says optimal behavior can be less consistent with matching than momentary maximizing, and the Matching section reports substantial deviations under some conditions. The source therefore supports the claim for some schedules, not as a general rule for the citing paper’s unspecified task. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficients and quality of fits were similar for the 2 monkeys, consistent with the examples shown in Figure 3.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 2 shows that there was a period following acquisition where the animals' behavior fluctuated about a steady-state.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Steady-state data following adjustment to each transition were well characterized by the generalized matching law; response ratios undermatched reinforcer frequency ratios but matched reinforcer magnitude ratios.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Steady-state data following adjustment to each transition were well characterized by the generalized matching law; response ratios undermatched reinforcer frequency ratios but matched reinforcer magnitude ratios.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both animals showed greater sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude (b) than reinforcer frequency (a).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no difference between the acquisition times for the two possible posttransition ratios in each condition (∼3∶1 and ∼6∶1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but we extend this to show that accounting for recent choices also is required for accurate predictions by models of this type.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The acquisition time was 11.56 trials for Monkey H and 10.86 trials for Monkey B averaged over all the conditions where reinforcer magnitude was manipulated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was 11.4 trials for Monkey H and 10.42 trials for Monkey B averaged over all the conditions where reinforcer frequency was manipulated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Houston and McNamara (1981) prove that reinforcer rate is maximized by repeating a deterministic sequence; an optimal subject would choose the rich alternative a fixed number of times (dictated by the particular schedules) followed by a single choice of the lean alternative (see also Staddon et al., 1981).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Houston and McNamara (1981)
- Partly supportedcites Staddon et al., 1981 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including these covariates accounted for quadratic and cubic deviations in the data, but only increased the average percentage of variance explained by 1.8% (range, 0.31 to 3.81%) and 1.5% (range, 0.13 to 2.63%) for the reinforcer frequency and reinforcer magnitude conditions, respectively.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have found that local linear weightings of past reinforcers predict the choice behavior of monkeys performing a matching task, with weights similar to those suggested by reinforcer rate estimation models, but we extend this to show that accounting for recent choices also is required for accurate predictions by models of this type.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a rapid acquisition period following the transition, and the curves diverged for the two possible posttransition ratios.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both monkeys, the coefficients for reinforcer history are similar in shape for both the probability and magnitude conditions, although the coefficients are larger in the probability conditions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positive coefficients for the trials further in the past than the last trial mean that choosing a particular alternative some time in the past increases the likelihood of choosing it again, independent of the effects due to past reinforcers. Alone, these coefficients would produce a tendency to persist on an alternative.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Monkeys adjusted their choice behavior in response to abrupt reversals in the prevailing reinforcer conditions, reaching an average steady-state of responding after obtaining relatively few reinforcers under the new schedule conditions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost as soon as one of the alternatives was preferred, the runlengths for the nonpreferred alternative became very short, typically one trial (mean across all preferences was 1.05 trials with a standard deviation of 0.09).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both monkeys, the autocorrelations stayed mostly within these confidence intervals, indicating that the residuals were largely unstructured.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model predictions captured the steady-state average as well as the dynamics of the transitions between blocks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By accounting for the effects of past choices we showed that our monkeys have a short-term tendency to alternate as well as a longer-term tendency to persist on the more frequently chosen alternative.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern of results for reinforcer history is similar for both animals; the most recent reinforcers strongly increased the odds of choosing the reinforced alternative again, and this influence decayed as reinforcers receded in time.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actual runlength data systematically deviate from and hence reject this model”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was little or no spatial bias towards either alternative, which was consistent with our steady-state analysis using the generalized matching law.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The negative coefficient for the last trial means that choosing a particular alternative decreased the odds of choosing that alternative again on the next trial, independent of any effects due to reinforcer history. Alone, this coefficient would produce a tendency to alternate.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, they show that the monkeys tend to stay at the richer alternative, switching briefly to sample the leaner alternative.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data analyzed were 67,827 completed trials from Monkey H and 47,160 completed trials from Monkey B.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The strict matching law equates these two quantities; the relative number of choices matches the relative reinforcer frequency (Herrnstein, 1961).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Herrnstein, 1961 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of trials per block observed was 121 trials for Monkey H and 125 trials for Monkey B, after excluding aborted trials.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The generalized matching law for reinforcer frequency and magnitude assumes that these attributes have independent effects (Baum & Rachlin, 1969), but allows for differential levels of control by each variable;”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baum & Rachlin, 1969
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Single neurons in a number of cortical areas have activity correlated with reinforcer frequency (Barraclough, Conroy, & Lee, 2004; Platt & Glimcher, 1999; Sugrue et al., 2004) and magnitude (Platt & Glimcher, 1999).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the data reported were collected after at least 3 months of training on the choice task.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If the monkeys chose in a purely probabilistic manner by flipping a weighted coin on each trial, with the weight dictated by the degree of preference (e.g., a 2∶1 preference gives a two-thirds probability of choosing the preferred alternative on each trial), the runlengths would be distributed geometrically with a mean equal to the reciprocal of the coin weight.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Houston & Sumida, 1987
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the purely probabilistic baseline model, choices are independent between trials, so the degree of weighting of the coin fully specifies the runlength distributions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that the generalized matching law is a reasonable description of our data, even though it typically is used to describe data after many sessions, rather than trials, of training under the same reinforcer conditions.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present results suggest that behavioral models incorporating dependence on both past reinforcers and choices may provide more accurate predictions, which will be essential for correlation with neural activity.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The generalized matching law describes an enormous amount of data collected from many species (de Villiers, 1977), and allows one to predict average choice behavior under different conditions, such as for arbitrary combinations of reinforcer frequency and magnitude.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites de Villiers, 1977
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The monkeys rarely aborted trials (7% and 6% of trials for Monkey H and Monkey B, respectively), and these trials were excluded from our analyses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the generalized matching law fits the steady-state behavior that we measured, it only describes average choice. It is silent regarding the sequences of choices underlying these averages.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many of the more plausible—in the sense that animals may actually implement them—theoretical models incorporate some form of reinforcer rate estimation using linear weightings of past reinforcers (e.g., Killeen, 1981; Luce, 1959).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Killeen, 1981
- Not checked yetcites Luce, 1959
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The differences in AIC values in Table 3 represent the degree of evidence in favor of the best-fitting model, and the simpler models were selected to give a sense of the contribution of each model component. The larger the difference the less plausible a model is compared to the best model; values greater than 10 on this scale provide strong support for the model with the smallest AIC value (Burnh”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burnham & Anderson, 1998 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first stage, the subjective value of each alternative is estimated from past experience, and in the second stage a decision is formed by comparing these estimates.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model is inadequate, and clearly indicates the need to incorporate the effects of past choices to account for the response-by-response structure in our task.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the model is linear in the parameters, the coefficients weighting past reinforcers can be rescaled so they sum to 1.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we have sketched it, the first stage includes the effects of past reinforcers, which we think of as providing estimates of the rate of reinforcement.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Animals form internal representations about recently obtained reinforcers.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern comes about because larger or more frequent reinforcers increase the likelihood of repeating choices to the alternative that yields them. Momentary decreases in rich reinforcers eventually cause a switch to the lean alternative, followed by a tendency to switch immediately back to the rich alternative due to longer-term choice history effects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This estimate has units of reinforcer magnitude per trial, and is passed to the second stage to form a choice probability.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Baum, Schwendiman, and Bell (1999) observed this pattern of behavior in pigeons under concurrent VI VI schedules, terming it “fix-and-sample.””
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baum, Schwendiman, and Bell (1999)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, we may have observed stronger undermatching because we reversed the reinforcement contingencies many times during a single session.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, Baum et al. showed that the sequential structure varied depending on presence or absence of a changeover delay; pigeons adjust their patterns of choice behavior to respect the fluctuations in local probability of reinforcement.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baum et al.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Many theoretical models of foraging and repeated choice behavior assume that the rate of prey encounter or reinforcement is a fundamental variable that animals use to achieve the computational goals of maximizing fitness or reinforcement (Stephens & Krebs, 1986).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stephens & Krebs, 1986
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These response-by-response dependencies could have arisen from the effects of past reinforcers and/or past choices, but how this occurs cannot be revealed through sequential statistics like runlengths because they do not take into account when reinforcers were delivered.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is common to split the decision process in this manner (e.g., Davis, Staddon, Machado, & Palmer, 1993; Houston, Kacelnik, & McNamara, 1982; Luce, 1959).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis, Staddon, Machado, & Palmer, 1993
- Not checked yetcites Houston, Kacelnik, & McNamara, 1982
- Not checked yetcites Luce, 1959
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relative to Monkey H, the coefficients for Monkey B are initially larger, but also decay more quickly, indicating that recent reinforcers would shift preference more strongly, but that their effects are more local in time.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rate estimation is usually implemented by a weighted average with exponential decay (Killeen, 1981, 1994), which captures the intuitive notion that because natural environments are nonstationary, recent events should weigh more heavily in memory than long-past events (Cowie, 1977).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Killeen, 1981, 1994
- Not checked yetcites Cowie, 1977 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the probability of reinforcement grows geometrically with time or responses spent away from the lean alternative in tasks like the one we used, it eventually pays to choose that alternative, but because its probability is reset to its initial low value once chosen it is never worth staying more than one trial.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNC) and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) appear to be important for estimating reinforcement rate.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“characterizing the effects of past reinforcers and choices allows a finer separation of these effects at the neural level.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“They showed that the number of action potentials discharged by individual SNC neurons is proportional to the magnitude of the difference between the reinforcer expected (vi−1) and the reinforcer actually obtained (ri), thereby lending strong support to the hypothesis that dopamine neurons underlie the computation of prediction error.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bayer and Glimcher (2005) source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This idea is consistent with evidence that frontal cortex and the basal ganglia—which are densely interconnected—are important for the expression and learning of motor sequences (Hikosaka et al., 1999; Tanji, 2001; Tanji & Hoshi, 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hikosaka et al., 1999 source
- Not checked yetcites Tanji, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Tanji & Hoshi, 2001
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These neurons send dense projections to the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, and current evidence suggests that these areas may use a prediction error to estimate reinforcer rate (Barraclough et al., 2004; Haruno et al., 2004; O'Doherty et al., 2004).”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Experiments with monkeys and humans have shown that these neurons encode a prediction error, the difference between the reinforcer expected and the reinforcer obtained within a trial (O'Doherty et al., 2004; Schultz, 1998).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Appropriate use of recent memory for past responses can generate tendencies to shift away from, or to persist on, recently chosen alternatives (negative recency and positive recency), and is necessary for producing patterned sequences of responses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The covariation of neural activity in the parietal cortex with behaviorally relevant variables likely reflects computations carried out in other brain areas.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bayer and Glimcher (2005) linked SNC activity to reinforcement-rate estimation using the exponentially weighted average described above.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bayer and Glimcher (2005) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, Devenport and Devenport (1994) propose a temporal weighting rule that weights past reinforcers hyperbolically (with respect to units of time).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Devenport and Devenport (1994)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The decision stage of many choice models uses rules including simply selecting the most valuable alternative (Herrnstein & Vaughan, 1980), matching choice proportions to the local rates of reinforcement (Kacelnik, Krebs, & Ens, 1987), and the logistic function we have used, which is commonly referred to as the softmax (Sutton & Barto, 1998) or logit (Camerer & Ho, 1998) decision rule.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Herrnstein & Vaughan, 1980
- Not checked yetcites Kacelnik, Krebs, & Ens, 1987
- Not checked yetcites Sutton & Barto, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This captures the idea that one can only remember so much information, but it is distinct from what one does with that memory, which presumably depends on reinforcement contingencies and other factors (Glimcher, 2005; Neuringer, 2002).”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These variables must be represented in the nervous system if they are to affect choice”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the probability of reinforcement grows geometrically with time or responses spent away from the lean alternative in tasks like the one we used, it eventually pays to choose that alternative, but because its probability is reset to its initial low value once chosen it is never worth staying more than one trial.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For an animal foraging for food, evaluating which patch to forage at is a complex combination of estimating the reinforcement rate at each patch, the likelihood that an alternative patch has recently become richer, the risk of predation, and so on.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Monkeys are commonly used as subjects in neuroscientific research but are rarely used as subjects in matching experiments.
“However, monkeys are commonly used as subjects in neuroscientific research, but they are rarely used as subjects in matching experiments, and the behavioral research that has been done with monkeys (Anderson, Velkey, & Woolverton, 2002; Iglauer & Woods, 1974) differs in a number of procedural details from the behavioral methods used in neuroscience.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial.
“We assume that past reinforcers and choices are linearly combined to determine choice on each trial, which allows us to write the logistic regression,”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric: a past reinforcer or choice to the right changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or choice to the left changes the odds of choosing left.
“We simplify the model by assuming that the effects of past reinforcers and choices are symmetric; a past reinforcer or a choice to the right alternative changes the odds of choosing right by the same amount that a past reinforcer or a choice to the left alternative changes the odds of choosing left.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the purely probabilistic baseline model, choices are independent between trials, so the degree of weighting of the coin fully specifies the runlength distributions.
“This is a useful baseline model because the assumption of independence between trials that defines this model means that the degree of weighting of the coin fully specifies the runlength distributions (e.g., Houston & Sumida, 1987).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Animals form internal representations about recently obtained reinforcers.
“The terms Σ α(rR − rL) encapsulate our assumptions about the internal representations animals form about recently obtained reinforcers.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“So far a few studies have estimated the time constant of this filter from behavior, and assessed how past rewards affect choice selection8-12”
From A reservoir of time constants for memory traces in cortical neurons (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Hence, the decision behavior is influenced by past rewards harvested locally in time, in agreement with the observed monkey’s behavior (Sugrue et al., 2004; Lau and Glimcher, 2005).”
From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Lau and Glimcher, 2005
In the citing paper
“On the other hand, in reinforcement models for reward-dependent choice (Barraclough et al., 2004; Sugrue et al., 2004, 2005; Lau and Glimcher, 2005), the DV is defined by values of response options which are deterministically updated according to past rewards, whereas the choice is generated by a probabilistic decision rule (e.g., a softmax criterion) based on the DV.”
From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Lau and Glimcher, 2005
Citations
Cites
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2004.842673 · Cited by 25,268
(2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,333
Book Review: Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control
Geurts, M. D., Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150485 · Cited by 19,410
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control
Kleiner, B., Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. (1977) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1267710 · Cited by 6,447
Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons
Schultz, W. (1998) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1998.80.1.1 · Cited by 4,564
Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach
Strawderman, R. L., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2669574 · Cited by 4,194
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Houston, 1982, Functional ontogeny, 140
- Kacelnik, 1987, Quantitative analyses of behaviour, Vol. 6: Foraging, 63
- Stephens, 1986, Foraging theory
- Williams, 1988, Stevens's handbook of experimental psychology, 167
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Neural Basis of Decision Making
Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038 · Cited by 3,764
Symonds, M. R. E., & Moussalli, A. (2010) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1037-6 · Cited by 2,554
Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors
Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.027 · Cited by 1,779
Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: the dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis
Glimcher, P. W. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1014269108 · Cited by 955
Self-citationOptimal decision making and the anterior cingulate cortex
Kennerley, S. W., Walton, M. E., Behrens, T. E. J., Buckley, M. J., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2006) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1724 · Cited by 948
Metadata
- Authors
- Lau, B., & Glimcher, P. W.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lau, Brian
- Venue
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 555-579
- ISSN
- 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1389781
- OpenAlex
- W2001643038
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 106
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 10.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- York University
- National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
- National Eye Institute (EY010536, R01EY010536)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- matching law, generalized matching law, choice behavior, reinforcement learning, reinforcement magnitude, response ratio, steady-state behavior, rhesus monkeys
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Attention, Choice Behavior, Color Perception, Conditioning, Operant, Discrimination Learning, Electrooculography, Eye Movements, Fixation, Ocular, Macaca mulatta, Male, Motivation, Probability Learning, Reinforcement Schedule, Retention, Psychology, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Visual Fields
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
