Effort Foraging Task reveals positive correlation between individual differences in the cost of cognitive and physical effort in humans.

Effort-based decisions, in which people weigh potential future rewards against effort costs required to achieve those rewards involve both cognitive and physical effort, though the mechanistic relationship between them is not yet understood. Here, we use an individual differences approach to isolate and measure the computational processes underlying effort-based decisions and test the association between cognitive and physical domains. Patch foraging is an ecologically valid reward rate maximization problem with well-developed theoretical tools. We developed the Effort Foraging Task, which embedded cognitive or physical effort into patch foraging, to quantify the cost of both cognitive and physical effort indirectly, by their effects on foraging choices. Participants chose between harvesting a depleting patch, or traveling to a new patch that was costly in time and effort. Participants' exit thresholds (reflecting the reward they expected to receive by harvesting when they chose to travel to a new patch) were sensitive to cognitive and physical effort demands, allowing us to quantify the perceived effort cost in monetary terms. The indirect sequential choice style revealed effort-seeking behavior in a minority of participants (preferring high over low effort) that has apparently been missed by many previous approaches. Individual differences in cognitive and physical effort costs were positively correlated, suggesting that these are perceived and processed in common. We used canonical correlation analysis to probe the relationship of task measures to self-reported affect and motivation, and found correlations of cognitive effort with anxiety, cognitive function, behavioral activation, and self-efficacy, but no similar correlations with physical effort.

Humans decompose tasks by trading off utility and computational cost.

Human behavior emerges from planning over elaborate decompositions of tasks into goals, subgoals, and low-level actions. How are these decompositions created and used? Here, we propose and evaluate a normative framework for task decomposition based on the simple idea that people decompose tasks to reduce the overall cost of planning while maintaining task performance. Analyzing 11,117 distinct graph-structured planning tasks, we find that our framework justifies several existing heuristics for task decomposition and makes predictions that can be distinguished from two alternative normative accounts. We report a behavioral study of task decomposition (N = 806) that uses 30 randomly sampled graphs, a larger and more diverse set than that of any previous behavioral study on this topic. We find that human responses are more consistent with our framework for task decomposition than alternative normative accounts and are most consistent with a heuristic-betweenness centrality-that is justified by our approach. Taken together, our results suggest the computational cost of planning is a key principle guiding the intelligent structuring of goal-directed behavior.

The temporal dynamics of opportunity costs: A normative account of cognitive fatigue and boredom.

Cognitive fatigue and boredom are two phenomenological states that reflect overt task disengagement. In this article, we present a rational analysis of the temporal structure of controlled behavior, which provides a formal account of these phenomena. We suggest that in controlling behavior, the brain faces competing behavioral and computational imperatives, and must balance them by tracking their opportunity costs over time. We use this analysis to flesh out previous suggestions that feelings associated with subjective effort, like cognitive fatigue and boredom, are the phenomenological counterparts of these opportunity cost measures, instead of reflecting the depletion of resources as has often been assumed. Specifically, we propose that both fatigue and boredom reflect the competing value of particular options that require foregoing immediate reward but can improve future performance: Fatigue reflects the value of offline computation (internal to the organism) to improve future decisions, while boredom signals the value of exploration (external in the world). We demonstrate that these accounts provide a mechanistically explicit and parsimonious account for a wide array of findings related to cognitive control, integrating and reimagining them under a single, formally rigorous framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The opportunity cost of time modulates cognitive effort.

A spate of recent work demonstrates that humans seek to avoid the expenditure of cognitive effort, much like physical effort or economic resources. Less is clear, however, about the circumstances dictating how and when people decide to expend cognitive effort. Here we adopt a popular theory of opportunity costs and response vigor and to elucidate this question. This account, grounded in Reinforcement Learning, formalizes a trade-off between two costs: the harder work assumed necessary to emit faster actions and the opportunity cost inherent in acting more slowly (i.e., the delay that results to the next reward and subsequent rewards). Recent work reveals that the opportunity cost of time-operationalized as the average reward rate per unit time, theorized to be signaled by tonic dopamine levels, modulates the speed with which a person responds in a simple discrimination tasks. We extend this framework to cognitive effort in a diverse range of cognitive tasks, for which 1) the amount of cognitive effort demanded from the task varies from trial to trial and 2) the putative expenditure of cognitive effort holds measureable consequences in terms of accuracy and response time. In the domains of cognitive control, perceptual decision-making, and task-switching, we found that subjects tuned their level of effort exertion in accordance with the experienced average reward rate: when the opportunity cost of time was high, subjects made more errors and responded more quickly, which we interpret as a withdrawal of cognitive effort. That is, expenditure of cognitive effort appeared to be modulated by the opportunity cost of time. Further, and consistent with our account, the strength of this modulation was predicted by individual differences in efficacy of cognitive control. Taken together, our results elucidate the circumstances dictating how and when people expend cognitive effort.

Learning the opportunity cost of time in a patch-foraging task.

Although most decision research concerns choice between simultaneously presented options, in many situations options are encountered serially, and the decision is whether to exploit an option or search for a better one. Such problems have a rich history in animal foraging, but we know little about the psychological processes involved. In particular, it is unknown whether learning in these problems is supported by the well-studied neurocomputational mechanisms involved in more conventional tasks. We investigated how humans learn in a foraging task, which requires deciding whether to harvest a depleting resource or switch to a replenished one. The optimal choice (given by the marginal value theorem; MVT) requires comparing the immediate return from harvesting to the opportunity cost of time, which is given by the long-run average reward. In two experiments, we varied opportunity cost across blocks, and subjects adjusted their behavior to blockwise changes in environmental characteristics. We examined how subjects learned their choice strategies by comparing choice adjustments to a learning rule suggested by the MVT (in which the opportunity cost threshold is estimated as an average over previous rewards) and to the predominant incremental-learning theory in neuroscience, temporal-difference learning (TD). Trial-by-trial decisions were explained better by the MVT threshold-learning rule. These findings expand on the foraging literature, which has focused on steady-state behavior, by elucidating a computational mechanism for learning in switching tasks that is distinct from those used in traditional tasks, and suggest connections to research on average reward rates in other domains of neuroscience.

Depression: a decision-theoretic analysis.

The manifold symptoms of depression are common and often transient features of healthy life that are likely to be adaptive in difficult circumstances. It is when these symptoms enter a seemingly self-propelling spiral that the maladaptive features of a disorder emerge. We examine this malignant transformation from the perspective of the computational neuroscience of decision making, investigating how dysfunction of the brain's mechanisms of evaluation might lie at its heart. We start by considering the behavioral implications of pessimistic evaluations of decision variables. We then provide a selective review of work suggesting how such pessimism might arise via specific failures of the mechanisms of evaluation or state estimation. Finally, we analyze ways that miscalibration between the subject and environment may be self-perpetuating. We employ the formal framework of Bayesian decision theory as a foundation for this study, showing how most of the problems arise from one of its broad algorithmic facets, namely model-based reasoning.

Multiple memory systems as substrates for multiple decision systems.

It has recently become widely appreciated that value-based decision making is supported by multiple computational strategies. In particular, animal and human behavior in learning tasks appears to include habitual responses described by prominent model-free reinforcement learning (RL) theories, but also more deliberative or goal-directed actions that can be characterized by a different class of theories, model-based RL. The latter theories evaluate actions by using a representation of the contingencies of the task (as with a learned map of a spatial maze), called an "internal model." Given the evidence of behavioral and neural dissociations between these approaches, they are often characterized as dissociable learning systems, though they likely interact and share common mechanisms. In many respects, this division parallels a longstanding dissociation in cognitive neuroscience between multiple memory systems, describing, at the broadest level, separate systems for declarative and procedural learning. Procedural learning has notable parallels with model-free RL: both involve learning of habits and both are known to depend on parts of the striatum. Declarative memory, by contrast, supports memory for single events or episodes and depends on the hippocampus. The hippocampus is thought to support declarative memory by encoding temporal and spatial relations among stimuli and thus is often referred to as a relational memory system. Such relational encoding is likely to play an important role in learning an internal model, the representation that is central to model-based RL. Thus, insofar as the memory systems represent more general-purpose cognitive mechanisms that might subserve performance on many sorts of tasks including decision making, these parallels raise the question whether the multiple decision systems are served by multiple memory systems, such that one dissociation is grounded in the other. Here we investigated the relationship between model-based RL and relational memory by comparing individual differences across behavioral tasks designed to measure either capacity. Human subjects performed two tasks, a learning and generalization task (acquired equivalence) which involves relational encoding and depends on the hippocampus; and a sequential RL task that could be solved by either a model-based or model-free strategy. We assessed the correlation between subjects' use of flexible, relational memory, as measured by generalization in the acquired equivalence task, and their differential reliance on either RL strategy in the decision task. We observed a significant positive relationship between generalization and model-based, but not model-free, choice strategies. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that model-based RL, like acquired equivalence, relies on a more general-purpose relational memory system.

The algorithmic anatomy of model-based evaluation.

Despite many debates in the first half of the twentieth century, it is now largely a truism that humans and other animals build models of their environments and use them for prediction and control. However, model-based (MB) reasoning presents severe computational challenges. Alternative, computationally simpler, model-free (MF) schemes have been suggested in the reinforcement learning literature, and have afforded influential accounts of behavioural and neural data. Here, we study the realization of MB calculations, and the ways that this might be woven together with MF values and evaluation methods. There are as yet mostly only hints in the literature as to the resulting tapestry, so we offer more preview than review.

Decision theory, reinforcement learning, and the brain.

Decision making is a core competence for animals and humans acting and surviving in environments they only partially comprehend, gaining rewards and punishments for their troubles. Decision-theoretic concepts permeate experiments and computational models in ethology, psychology, and neuroscience. Here, we review a well-known, coherent Bayesian approach to decision making, showing how it unifies issues in Markovian decision problems, signal detection psychophysics, sequential sampling, and optimal exploration and discuss paradigmatic psychological and neural examples of each problem. We discuss computational issues concerning what subjects know about their task and how ambitious they are in seeking optimal solutions; we address algorithmic topics concerning model-based and model-free methods for making choices; and we highlight key aspects of the neural implementation of decision making.

Tonic dopamine: opportunity costs and the control of response vigor.

RATIONALE: Dopamine neurotransmission has long been known to exert a powerful influence over the vigor, strength, or rate of responding. However, there exists no clear understanding of the computational foundation for this effect; predominant accounts of dopamine's computational function focus on a role for phasic dopamine in controlling the discrete selection between different actions and have nothing to say about response vigor or indeed the free-operant tasks in which it is typically measured. OBJECTIVES: We seek to accommodate free-operant behavioral tasks within the realm of models of optimal control and thereby capture how dopaminergic and motivational manipulations affect response vigor. METHODS: We construct an average reward reinforcement learning model in which subjects choose both which action to perform and also the latency with which to perform it. Optimal control balances the costs of acting quickly against the benefits of getting reward earlier and thereby chooses a best response latency. RESULTS: In this framework, the long-run average rate of reward plays a key role as an opportunity cost and mediates motivational influences on rates and vigor of responding. We review evidence suggesting that the average reward rate is reported by tonic levels of dopamine putatively in the nucleus accumbens. CONCLUSIONS: Our extension of reinforcement learning models to free-operant tasks unites psychologically and computationally inspired ideas about the role of tonic dopamine in striatum, explaining from a normative point of view why higher levels of dopamine might be associated with more vigorous responding.