Reward Sensitivity and Noise Contribute to Negative Affective Bias: A Learning Signal Detection Theory Approach in Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In patients with mood disorders, negative affective biases – systematically prioritising and interpreting information negatively – are common. A translational cognitive task testing this bias has shown that depressed patients have a reduced preference for a high reward under ambiguous decision-making conditions. The precise mechanisms underscoring this bias are, however, not yet understood. We therefore developed a set of measures to probe the underlying source of the behavioural bias by testing its relationship to a participant’s reward sensitivity, value sensitivity and reward learning rate. One-hundred-forty-eight participants completed three online behavioural tasks: the original ambiguous-cue decision-making task probing negative affective bias, a probabilistic reward learning task probing reward sensitivity and reward learning rate, and a gambling task probing value sensitivity. We modelled the learning task through a dynamic signal detection theory model and the gambling task through an expectation-maximisation prospect theory model. Reward sensitivity from the probabilistic reward task (β = 0.131, p = 0.024) and setting noise from the probabilistic reward task (β = –0.187, p = 0.028) both predicted the affective bias score in a logistic regression. Increased negative affective bias, at least on this specific task, may therefore be driven in part by a combination of reduced sensitivity to rewards and more variable responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".