Imagine, for a moment, that you are facing a very difficult decision about which of two job offers to accept. One position offers good pay and job security, but is pretty mundane, whereas the other job is really interesting and offers reasonable pay, but has questionable job security.

Clearly you can go about resolving this dilemma in many ways. Few people, however, would say that your decision should be affected or influenced by whether or not you resisted the urge to eat cookies prior to contemplating the job offers. A decade of psychology research suggests otherwise.

Unrelated activities that tax the executive function have important lingering effects, and may disrupt your ability to make such an important decision. In other words, you might choose the wrong job because you didn't eat a cookie. Taxing Tasks But what types of actions exhaust executive function and affect subsequent decision-making?

Until recently, researchers focused on activities that involved the exertion of self-control or the regulation of attention. For instance, it's long been recognized that strenuous cognitive tasks—such as taking the SAT—can make it harder to focus later on.

But recent results suggests that these taxing mental activities may be much broader in scope-and may even involve the very common activity of making choices itself. In a series of experiments and field studies, University of Minnesota psychologist Kathleen Vohs and colleagues repeatedly demonstrate that the mere act of making a selection may deplete executive resources.

For example, in one study the researchers found that participants who made more choices in a mall were less likely to persist and do well in solving simple algebra problems.

In another task in the same study, students who had to mark preferences about the courses they would take to satisfy their degree requirements were much more likely to procrastinate on preparing for an important test.

Instead of studying, these "tired" minds engaged in distracting leisure activities. Why is making a determination so taxing?

Neurons communicate through rapid bursts of noisy electrical signals, which occur alongside a flurry of other activity in the brain.

Lim Professor in the School of Engineering and a professor, by courtesy, of neurobiology and of bioengineering, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. In this particular study, instead of predicting the immediate movement of the arm, the researchers wanted to predict the intention about an upcoming choice as reported by an arm movement — which required a new algorithm.

The researchers speculated that more positive values of the decision variable indicated increased confidence by the monkey that the dots were moving right, whereas more negative values indicated confidence that the dots were shifting left.

Predictions in the second experiment, in which the monkey had likely undergone a change of mind, were almost as accurate. In advance of the third experiment, the researchers checked how many dots they could add during the test before the monkey became distracted by the change in the stimulus.

According to one such model, people and animals make decisions based on the cumulative sum of evidence during a trial. But if this were true, then the bias the researchers introduced with the new dots should have had the same effect no matter when it was introduced. Instead, the results seemed to support an alternative model, which states that if a subject has enough confidence in a decision building in their mind, or has spent too long deliberating, they are less inclined to consider new evidence.

Due to differences between human and nonhuman primate brains, the results could be surprising. But support is available to help you…. Domestic Violence Screening Quiz Emotional Type Quiz Loneliness Quiz Parenting Style Quiz Personality Test Relationship Quiz Stress Test What's Your Sleep Like?

Psych Central. Conditions Discover Quizzes Resources. Why Am I So Indecisive? Medically reviewed by Joslyn Jelinek, LCSW — By Kaitlin Vogel — Updated on May 20, Causes Tips for indecisiveness Next steps Indecisiveness has many causes.

What causes indecisiveness? Next steps. Birn RM, et al. Early childhood stress exposure, reward pathways, and adult decision making. Psychology of procrastination: Why people put off important tasks until the last minute. aspx Hallenbeck HW, et al. Understanding indecisiveness: Dimensionality of two self-report questionnaires and associations with depression and indecision.

The simplicity principle: Six steps towards clarity in a complex world. New York, New York: Kogan Page Publishers.

Manly C. Personal interview. Perlus H. Pushkarskaya H, et al. Decision-making under uncertainty in obsessive-compulsive disorder. A psychological theory of indecisiveness. Read this next.

Ways to Prevent Anxiety from Affecting Your Decision-Making If you live with anxiety, making decisions might be a challenge, but there are ways to improve your decision-making skills.

READ MORE. How Does ADHD Affect Decision Making? Plus 8 Tips That Can Help ADHD can affect your ability to perform tasks, such as making decisions.

For example, in one study the researchers found that participants who made more choices in a mall were less likely to persist and do well in solving simple algebra problems. In another task in the same study, students who had to mark preferences about the courses they would take to satisfy their degree requirements were much more likely to procrastinate on preparing for an important test.

Instead of studying, these "tired" minds engaged in distracting leisure activities. Why is making a determination so taxing?

Evidence implicates two important components: commitment and tradeoff resolution. The first is predicated on the notion that committing to a given course requires switching from a state of deliberation to one of implementation.

In other words, you have to make a transition from thinking about options to actually following through on a decision. This switch, according to Vohs, requires executive resources.

In a parallel investigation, Yale University professor Nathan Novemsky and his colleagues suggest that the mere act of resolving tradeoffs may be depleting. For example, in one study, the scientists show that people who had to rate the attractiveness of different options were much less depleted than those who had to actually make choices between the very same options.

Choosy about Choices These findings have important real world implications. If making choices depletes executive resources, then "downstream" decisions might be affected adversely when we are forced to choose with a fatigued brain.

Indeed, University of Maryland psychologist Anastasiya Pocheptsova and colleagues found exactly this effect: individuals who had to regulate their attention—which requires executive control—made significantly different choices than people who did not.

These different choices follow a very specific pattern: they become reliant on more a more simplistic, and often inferior, thought process, and can thus fall prey to perceptual decoys. For example, in one experiment participants who were asked to ignore interesting subtitles in an otherwise boring film clip were much more likely to choose an option that stood next to a clearly inferior "decoy"—an option that was similar to one of the good choices, but was obviously not quite as good—than participants who watched the same clip but were not asked to ignore anything.

Presumably, trying to control one's attention and to ignore an interesting cue exhausted the limited resource of the executive functions, making it significantly more difficult to ignore the existence of the otherwise irrelevant inferior decoy. Subjects with overtaxed brains made worse decisions. These experimental insights suggest that the brain works like a muscle: when depleted, it becomes less effective.

Furthermore, we should take this knowledge into account when making decisions. If we've just spent lots of time focusing on a particular task, exercising self-control or even if we've just made lots of seemingly minor choices, then we probably shouldn't try to make a major decision.

These deleterious carryover effects from a tired brain may have a strong shaping effect on our lives. Mind Matters is edited by Jonah Lehrer , the science writer behind the blog The Frontal Cortex and the book Proust was a Neuroscientist.

July 22, 4 min read. The brain is like a muscle: when it gets depleted, it becomes less effective. Results of risk choice ratio revealed that individuals with mental fatigue made more conservative choices, which indicates that they are more risk-averse. One potential interpretation for these findings is that mental fatigue may change the sensitivity to outcomes, and analyzing the current situation and making a subsequent decision may also require more cognitive resources, so individuals may wish to avoid risk-taking.

Therefore, in a state of mental fatigue, individuals might be more inclined to choose conservative options in the process of risk decision-making. A previous study pointed out that when the cognitive ability is low or the cognitive load is high, individuals are more inclined to adopt conservative strategies 9.

Wang et al. also found a similar phenomenon; individuals tend to make more conservative choices when mentally fatigued than when not Although different observations show a tendency toward making risky decisions in a population with sleep deprivation 13 and individuals with ego depletion 12 , they focused on different mental conditions.

To some extent, sleep deprivation is significantly different from general mental fatigue caused by prolonged mental activity. Sleep deprivation is a more complex and extreme condition. It can impair not only cognitive functions but also physical functions The participants in this study were healthy college students who had rested sufficiently before the experiment.

In addition, although ego depletion is related to mental fatigue, there is no evidence that they are equal in mental state. Thus, the contradictory results may be ascribable to the different conditions and populations.

One possible limitation of this study is that the gambling task we used as the decision task is likely not specifically just measuring risk taking. The risk choice ratio in gambling task might partially reveal the risk preference of individuals.

We found a reduced P in mentally fatigued individuals compared to no fatigue individuals, which provided evidence for a lack of cognitive resources in mentally fatigued people. Our findings are in line with previous reports about the ERP shift of P in mental fatigue individuals.

Previous reports have likewise described reduced P amplitudes in individuals with mental fatigue compared to no fatigue ones 22 , 37 , Our study showed that the P amplitude of the mental fatigue group was significantly smaller than the no fatigue group. This might indicate that individuals with mental fatigue did not have an equal ability to adjust their behaviors to make better decisions.

In addition, the P wave component has been reported to play an important role in enabling individuals to differentiate good from bad outcomes during decision-making and thereby allowing them to optimize their actions In the current study, P amplitude is seen to be positively correlated to risk preference in mental fatigue individuals.

From the relationship between P and risk preference, we can also suggest that the reduced P amplitude is related to risk-averse.

This is consistent with our findings in behavioral results that mentally fatigued individuals tend to be more risk avoidance than their counterparts. It suggested that P amplitude could be an electrophysiological index to risk-taking when mental fatigue.

FRN is closely related to the ACC a structure of central importance in the processing of reward, punishment, and effort demands Many studies have demonstrated FRN component is closely related to risk-taking in decision making 23 , 40 , 41 , Individual differences in FRN amplitude have been related to risk-taking 43 , 44 In this study, we found that FRN amplitude was significantly larger more negative in the mental fatigue group than the no-fatigue group.

Combined with the risk-averse tendency that we found in the mental fatigue group, we might claim that larger FRN amplitude is related to risk-averse. In an ERP study, lower FRN amplitude is shown in risk-seeking than risk-averse individuals.

This is partially consistent with what we found in the present study On the other hand, higher punishment sensitivity was associated with larger FRN amplitude 45 , It indicates that mental fatigue might lead to higher punishment sensitivity, which results in a risk-averse. In terms of the influence on the magnitude selected, the results showed a significant difference in the FRN amplitudes between the different magnitudes 10 and This also implies differences in the cognitive mechanism of the subjects' brainwaves when they made different choice magnitudes during risk decision-making.

The correlation analyses revealed that FRN amplitude is negatively correlated to the risk ratio in the mental fatigue group, which means the larger amplitude is related to risk avoidance.

These pieces of evidence also support our findings in the behavioral domain. The present study provides insights into the electrophysiological processing of differential responses to reward and punishment between mental fatigue individuals and no fatigue individuals.

This study demonstrates a decreased P amplitude following a loss as well as increased FRN responses in mental fatigue individuals. These findings suggest an underlying deficit in feedback processing, which may increase the propensity to be more risk-averse in mental fatigue individuals.

To sum up, by examining behavioral responses and brainwave characteristics, the current study investigated whether mental fatigue affects the sensitivity to outcomes and risk preferences of individuals. Indeed, the results of the present study revealed that the risk preference and ERP components were both influenced by mental fatigue.

Individuals with mental fatigue tended to make conservative choices during decision-making. According to the ERP results, this phenomenon might be explained by mental fatigue disturbing the processing of decision-making, especially the feedback processing of outcomes, which is considered to be one of the significant factors in decision-making.

The present study demonstrates the effect of mental fatigue on risk decision-making. Individuals with mental fatigue may have lower risk tolerance and consequently be risk averse. Our research contributes to the understanding of the effects of fatigue on decision-making by showing that mental fatigue affects both the risk preferences and the processing of feedback.

These findings provide insights into the electro-physiological processing during risk decision-making and may have practical implications for making appropriate decisions when in different mental states.

Arnold, P. et al. Hours of work, and perceptions of fatigue among truck drivers. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar. Persson, E. Health Econ. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar.

Boksem, M. Effects of mental fatigue on attention: An ERP study. Brain Res. Article Google Scholar. Faber, L. Mental fatigue affects visual selective attention.

PLoS ONE 7 , e Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar. Lorist, M. Impaired cognitive control and reduced cingulate activity during mental fatigue. Tanaka, M. Effect of mental fatigue on the central nervous system: an electroencephalography study. Brain Funct. Marcora, S.

Mental fatigue impairs physical performance in humans. Article PubMed Google Scholar. Starcke, K. Decision-making under risk conditions is susceptible to interference by a secondary executive task. Whitney, P. Framing effects under cognitive load: The role of working memory in risky decisions.

Danziger, S. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Unger, A. Ego-depletion and risk behavior: Too exhausted to take a risk. Gott 42 , 28—38 Fischer, P.

Ego depletion increases risk-taking. Venkatraman, V. Sleep deprivation elevates expectation of gains and attenuates response to losses following risky decisions. Sleep 30 , — Figner, B. Who takes risks when and why?.

Chandrakumar, D. Event-related potentials in relation to risk-taking: A systematic review. Zhang, D. An electrophysiological index of changes in risk decision-making strategies.

Neuropsychologia 51 , — Baker, T. Dissociated roles of the anterior cingulate cortex in reward and conflict processing as revealed by the feedback error-related negativity and N Cui, J. Neural correlates of uncertain decision making: ERP evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task.

Weinberg, A. Show me the Money: The impact of actual rewards and losses on the feedback negativity. Brain Cogn. Polich, J. Updating P An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Murata, A. Evaluation of mental fatigue using feature parameter extracted from event-related potential.

Käthner, I. Effects of mental workload and fatigue on the P, alpha and theta band power during operation of an ERP P brain-computer interface. Gehring, W. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses.

Science , — Article ADS CAS Google Scholar. Hajcak, G. The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes.

Wagner, D. Self-regulatory depletion increases emotional reactivity in the amygdala. van der Linden, D. Disrupted sensorimotor gating due to mental fatigue: Preliminary evidence. Chalder, T. Development of a fatigue scale.

Holroyd, C. The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Yeung, N. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar. Cohen, J. Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor anova designs. Csathó, Á. Effects of mental fatigue on the capacity limits of visual attention. Mental fatigue and task control: Planning and preparation.

Psychophysiology 37 , — Chen, Z. Study on the relationship between worker states and unsafe behaviours in coal mine accidents based on a Bayesian networks model.

Fletcher, A. Countermeasures to driver fatigue: A review of public awareness campaigns and legal approaches. Public Health 29 , — Wang, L. The effect of mental fatigue and framing on risk decision-making.

Orzeł-Gryglewska, J. Consequences of sleep deprivation. Health 23 , 95— Zhao, C. Electroencephalogram and electrocardiograph assessment of mental fatigue in a driving simulator. Hohnsbein, J. Effects of attention and time-pressure on P subcomponents and implications for mental workload research.

Nieuwenhuis, S. Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus—norepinephrine system. Lange, S. Behavioral approach and reward processing: Results on feedback-related negativity and P3 component.

Kamarajan, C. Dysfunctional reward processing in male alcoholics: An ERP study during a gambling task. Zhao, D. Incidental emotions influence risk preference and outcome evaluation.

Psychophysiology 53 , — Frank, M. Error-related negativity predicts reinforcement learning and conflict biases. Neuron 47 , — Massar, S. Amodio, D. Neurocognitive components of the behavioral inhibition and activation systems: Implications for theories of self-regulation.

Psychophysiology 45 , 11—19 PubMed Google Scholar. De Pascalis, V. Event-related components of the punishment and reward sensitivity. Download references. This study was supported by Scientific Research Foundation of Hunan Provincial Department of Education, China Grant No.

The authors thank Linfeng Yang and Shihao Zheng, undergraduate students of Industrial Engineering, Hunan Institute of Technology, for their assistance in this study. Department of Industrial Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, , Taiwan.

Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, , Taiwan. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. designed the research, performed the experiment, and collected the data. and E. analyzed the data, interpreted the results, and prepared the manuscript including the figures, tables, analytic tools, and organizational structure of the manuscript.

All authors reviewed the manuscript. Correspondence to Chiuhsiang Joe Lin. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.

If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions. Jia, H. Effects of mental fatigue on risk preference and feedback processing in risk decision-making. Sci Rep 12 , Download citation.

Received : 13 July Accepted : 10 June Published : 23 June Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines.

If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Skip to main content Thank you for visiting nature. nature scientific reports articles article. Download PDF. Subjects Human behaviour Psychology.

Abstract Mental fatigue is a common phenomenon in modern people, especially after a long period of mental work.

Methods Participants Forty-two Han Chinese students were recruited from the Hunan Institute of Technology, and two participants were excluded due to excessive artifacts in their EEG recordings. Full size table. Figure 1. AX-CPT paradigm. Full size image. Figure 2. Single outcome gambling task.

Results Subjective ratings The mean score on the mental symptom subscale of the Fatigue Scale was 4. Behavioral results Decision time Table 2 shows the behavioral results and risk choices of the two groups.

Table 2 Behavioral results and risk preference. Figure 3. Table 3 Mixed-model ANOVA results. Table 4 Correlation analysis results. Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether mental fatigue affects risk decision-making, which we intended to measure with both behavioral and brain activities.

Conclusion The present study demonstrates the effect of mental fatigue on risk decision-making. References Arnold, P. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar Persson, E.

This includes noting if a strategy was unsuccessful and keeping track of how often a strategy was successful. This tracking mechanism notices if the first attempt to use this strategy is successful. It then counts the number of successful strategy uses; this explicit count is continued until a certain value is reached.

We implemented such a threshold count mechanism to reflect the subjective feeling that a strategy was often useful. We implemented different threshold values for the model.

We also differentiated between the threshold for one-feature strategies first count and for two-feature strategies second count.

The tracking mechanism can be seen as a metacognitive aspect of our model. These metacognitive aspects include: first, the level of feature-complexity of the strategy, i.

Figure 1. Schematic build-up of the structure of the control and the strategy chunk. Nil indicates that the variable has no value. Production rules govern how the model runs through the task.

The flow of the model via its production rules is illustrated in Figure 2. The following section describes how the model runs through a trial, the specific production rules are noted in parentheses. Figure 2. Schematic overview of how the model runs through a trial. The dark-gray boxes on the left represent the production rules, the light-gray ovals on the right the main buffers involved.

A tone is presented to the model and enters the aural-location buffer listen. After the tone has finished, it is encoded in the aural buffer encode.

Thus, a chunk with all audio information necessary duration, direction of pitch change, intensity, and frequency range—see Section Modeling Paradigm and Stimuli below is in the aural buffer and all four characteristics of the tone are accessible to the model.

The audio chunk in the aural buffer is then compared to the strategy chunk held in the imaginal buffer compare. If the specific features e. The presented feedback is listened to and held in the aural-location buffer listen-feedback and then encoded in the aural buffer encode-feedback.

If the feedback is positive, the current strategy is kept in the imaginal buffer and the count-slot is updated feedback-correct. If the feedback is negative, the strategy is updated depending on previous experiences feedback-wrong.

Thus, a different strategy chunk is retrieved from declarative memory and copied to the imaginal buffer. All possible strategies are already available in the model's long-term memory.

The currently pursued strategy is maintained in working memory and evaluated regarding the feedback. For positive feedback, the strategy is retained and it is counted how often it is successful.

If feedback is negative, the strategy is usually altered. The following subsection is a summary of how strategy updating is implemented. For more information see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Rules governing when and to what degree the strategies are changed after negative feedback is received. The model always begins with a one-feature strategy which strategy it begins with is random and then switches to another one-feature strategy.

The nature of the switch depends on how often a particular strategy was successful. When the model searches for different one-feature strategies, it retrieves only strategies which were not used recently. In case of immediate failure of a one-feature strategy, a different response is used for the feature-value pair.

In other cases, the feature-value pair is changed, but the response is retained. If a one-feature strategy has been successful often and then fails once, the strategy is not directly exchanged, but re-evaluated. However, it is also noted that the strategy has caused an error.

Two possibilities explain why switches from a one-feature to a two-feature strategy occur: Such a switch can happen either because no one-feature strategy that was not negatively evaluated can be retrieved or because an often successful one-feature strategy failed repeatedly.

Switches within the two-feature strategy are modeled the following way: If a two-feature strategy was unsuccessful at the first attempt, any other two-feature strategy is used which one exactly is random. If a two-feature strategy was initially successful and then fails, then a new strategy which retains one of the feature-value pairs and the response will be selected.

This strategy only differs in the other feature-value pair. When the environment changes, a previously often successful two-feature strategy and also a one-feature strategy will fail. Then a retrieval of another two-feature strategy is attempted. If at the time the environment changes, the model has not found a successful two-feature strategy, it will continue looking for a useful two-feature strategy, and thus not notice the change.

The following section briefly describes how the experiment was implemented for the model. This includes a short overview of how the stimulus presentation was modified for the model. The task of the participants was implemented for the model in ACT-R 7. The same four pseudo-randomizations used for the participants were also used for the model.

A trial began with a tone, which lasted for ms. To model the two stimulus durations, we used two different features in the new-other-sound command. As soon as the model responded via button press, auditory feedback was presented.

Overall, a trial lasted for a randomized period of 6, 8, or 10 s, similar to the original experiment. There was no break for the model after trials, but the targets switched after trials, too. Instead of employing all different tones, sixteen different tones were presented to the model.

Each of the tones is a composition of four characteristics of the four binary features: duration long vs. short , direction of frequency modulation rising vs. falling , intensity low intensity, vs.

high intensity , and frequency range low vs. Only binary features were used for the model because the perceptual difference between the two classes of each selected feature was high, except for speed of modulation, which was therefore not implemented in the model. For the participants, more feature variations were used to ensure categorical decisions and to prevent them from memorizing individual tone-feedback pairs.

This is not an issue for the model, since no mechanism allowing such memorizing was implemented. As for the participants, auditory feedback was presented to the model.

The modeling approach is a mixed modeling approach, the strategies are encoded as instances, but which instance is retrieved is mainly governed by rules. To test if the model is a generalizable model, different variations were implemented. The learning curves found in the empirical data should still be found under different plausible parameter settings.

However, specific parameter settings should influence the predictive quality of the model. The approach typically chosen by cognitive modelers is to search for specific parameter settings that result in an optimal fit and then report this fit.

The objective behind such an approach is to show that the model resembles the ongoing cognitive processes in humans. We have chosen a different approach. Our objective is to show that our modeling approach can map the general behavior such as learning and reversal learning as well as variance found in the data.

By varying parameter settings, we want to optimize the fit of the model and examine the robustness of the model mechanisms to parameter variations. Regarding the choice of varying parameters, we use an extended parameter term which includes not only subsymbolic ACT-R parameters which are typically regarded as parameters but also certain production rules Stewart and West, In the case of this model, productions that control the tracking mechanism of successful strategies are varied.

The tracking mechanism keeps track of how often a strategy is successful. However, the model does not increase the count throughout the entire experiment.

So, to answer the question what the most suitable values for the threshold of the first and second count are, these values were varied. Another implemented model assumption is that this threshold is different for single-feature vs. two-feature strategies.

We assumed that the threshold for two-feature strategies should be double the value for one-feature strategies, as if the model was counting for each feature separately. The first count was varied for three, four and five and the second count for six, eight, and ten. Besides the parameters that control the tracking mechanism, we also investigated a parameter-controlled memory mechanism.

The latter controls for how long the model can remember if it had already used a previous strategy. This is the declarative-finst-span 5 parameter of ACT-R. We assumed that participants remember which strategy they previously used for around 10 trials back.

We therefore tested two different values 80 and s for this parameter, determining whether the model can remember if this chunk has been retrieved in the last 80 or s. The combination of the declarative-finst-span 80, , three values for the first count 3, 4, 5 and three values for the second count 6, 8, 10 resulted in 18 modeling versions see Table 1.

Table 1. Resulting modeling versions from combining the different parameter settings for the first and second count and the declarative-finst-span. Each of the models was run times, 40 times for each pseudo-randomized order, using ACT-R 7.

The data were preprocessed with custom Lisp files and then analyzed with Microsoft Excel. The model data and the empirical data were divided into 12 blocks, with 20 trials per block.

The average proportion of correct responses and the standard deviation per block was computed for the experiment as well as for each of the 18 models. One aim of this study was to predict average learning curves of the participants. Thus, the proportion of correct responses of the participants was compared to the proportion of correct responses of each of the models.

Visual graphs comparing the modeled to the empirical data were analyzed with regard to increases and decreases in correct responses.

As an indication of relative fit, the correlation coefficient r and the determination coefficient r 2 were computed. They represent how well trends in the empirical data are captured by the model.

As an indication of absolute fit, the root-mean-square error RMSE was calculated. RMSE represents how accurately the model predicts the empirical data. RMSE is interpreted as the standard deviation of the variance of the empirical data that is not explained by the model.

To compare the participant-based variance found in the empirical data with the variance produced by the individual model runs, a Levene's test a robust test for testing the equality of variances was calculated for each block of the experiment.

In the following sections, the empirical data, the modeled learning curves, and the results regarding the general fit of the different model versions to the data are presented. The descriptive analysis of the empirical data see Figure 4 and Table 2 shows that on average, in the first block the participants respond correctly in The response rate of the participants increases until the sixth block to In the seventh block, the block in which targets and non-targets switch, it drops to It then increases again and reaches Across all 12 blocks, the standard deviation of the empirical data ranges from The standard deviation of the participants derives from the fact that different participants showed different learning curves, and not all participants reported to have found the correct strategy in a post interview.

Correspondingly, eleven participants Figure 4. Table 2. In addition, Table 2 lists the model performance means and standard deviations for each of the twelve blocks for all 18 models, and Figure 5 shows the learning curves of all 18 models.

Figure 5. Average performance of the 18 versions of the model in the 12 blocks of the experiment, A models with a declarative-finst-span of 80 s, B models with a declarative-finst-span of s. Both the best and the worst fitting model as do all others capture the overall shape of the learning curve found in the data.

They both show an increase in the learning rate in the first six blocks. Similarly, all models show a drop in performance in the seventh block, which is followed by another increase in performance.

Also, the participants show a more severe setback after the switch but then recover faster, while the model takes longer until its performance increases again.

Nevertheless, for the best fitting model, the modeled data are always within the range of the standard deviation of the empirical data. As Table 2 shows, each of the models shows a large degree of variance across its runs. The standard deviation averaged across all 12 blocks ranges from For the best-fitting model, the standard deviation in the individual blocks ranges from This high variation of the individual model runs indicates that the same underlying rule-set with the same parameter settings can still result in very different learning curves, depending on which exact strategies are chosen at each point when a new strategy is selected e.

The average correlation of the model and the empirical data is 0. Between The average standard deviation of the unexplained variance is 0. All r, r 2 , and RMSE values for the 18 model versions are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Values of r, r 2 , and RMSE of the 18 versions of the model.

As Table 3 and Figure 5 show, the model shows relative robustness to the influence of varying parameter settings. For the first count, a lower value is somewhat better for the fit—there is a stronger increase in the first part of the experiment until Block 6 for a lower than for a higher first count value.

For the second count, a lower value results in a better fit as well. The influence of the declarative-finst-span parameter on the fit-indices is very small, resulting in a slightly better fit either for a declarative-finst-span of 80 s or of s, depending on the settings of first and second count.

The best fit in terms of correlation was achieved for the model with the declarative-finst-span value set to i. The worst fit was observed for the model with the declarative-finst-span value set to , a first count of five and a second count of ten.

The RMSE varies from a minimum of 0. Thus, the model with a first count of three, a second count of six and a declarative-finst-span set to performs best, both in terms of correlation r and absolute prediction RMSE. In general, the models predict the data well. The modeled learning curves resemble the form of the average empirical learning curve, with an increase in the first half of the experiment, a short decrease at the beginning of the second half, followed by another increase in performance.

The correlation indices of the best fitting model show a good fit, with Note that this is also the model with the closest absolute fit RSME is 0. However, in absolute percentages of correct responses, all of the models perform below the participants in all blocks except Block 7.

Also, the models show greater overall variance than the empirical data. In summary, the model replicates the average learning curves and large parts of the variance. It does so with a limited set of rules and the given exemplars, covering learning and relearning processes which take place in dynamic environments.

However, all of the 18 different parameter settings we tested resembled the main course of the empirical data, thereby indicating that the mechanisms of the model are robust to parameter variations. The discussion covers three main chapters. First, the fit of the model is discussed and suggestions for possible improvements are given.

Second, the broader implications of our approach are elaborated. Finally, future work is outlined. Our modeling account covers relevant behavioral data of a dynamic decision-making task in which category learning is required. To solve the task, two features have to be combined, and the relevant feature combination needs to be learned by trial and error using feedback.

The model uses feedback from the environment to find correct categories and to enable a switch in the assignment of response buttons to the target and non-target categories. Metacognition is built into the model via processes that govern under what conditions strategic changes, such as transitions from one-feature to two-feature strategies, occur.

Overall, the fit indices indicate that this model solves the task in a similar way as participants do. This includes successful initial learning as well as the successful learning of the reversal of category assignment.

Moreover, the observation was made that not all participants are able to solve the task, and the same is observed in the behavior of the modeling approach. Thus, the model is able to generate output data that, on a phenomenological level, resemble those of subjects performing a dynamic decision-making task that includes complex rule learning and reversal processes.

Although the overall learning trends found in the data can be replicated well with the general rules implemented in our model, there are two limitations: The variance of the model is larger than that of the participants, and the overall performance of the model is lower than the performance of the participants.

It is likely that the participants have a different and perhaps more specific set of rules than the model. For example, the participants were told which of the two keys to press for the target sound. However, it is unclear if they used this knowledge to solve the task.

To keep the model simple, it was not given this extra information, so there was no meaning assigned to the buttons. This is one possibility to explain the model's lower performance, especially in the first block. Another example for more task specific rules used by the participants compared to the model is that the four different features of the stimuli may not be equally salient to the subjects, which may have led to a higher performance compared to the model.

For example, it is conceivable that the target-feature direction of frequency modulation up vs. down was chosen earlier in the experiment than the non-target feature frequency range, while the model treated all features equally to keep the model as simple as possible. Finally, after the change of the button press rule, some participants might have followed a rule which states to press the opposite key if a strategy was correct for many times and then suddenly is not, instead of trying out a different one- or two-feature strategy, whereas the model went the latter way.

Adding such additional rules and premises to the model would possibly reduce the discrepancy between the performance of the model and the behavioral data. However, the aim of this paper was to develop a modeling approach that incorporates general processes important for all kinds of dynamic decision-making.

This implies using only assumptions that are absolutely essential meta-cognition, switching from one-feature to two-feature strategies, learning via feedback and keeping the model as simple as possible in other regards.

As a consequence, adding extra rules would not produce a better general model of dynamic decision-making, but would only lead to a better fit of the model for a specific experiment while making it prone to overfitting.

As mentioned earlier, good descriptive models capture the behavioral data as closely as possible and therefore always aim at maximizing the fit to the data they describe. Good predictive models, on the other hand, should be generalizable to also predict behavior in different, but structurally similar situations and not just for one specific situation with one set of subjects.

In our view, this constitutes a more desirable quest with more potential to understand the underlying processes of human dynamic decision-making. This is supported by Gigerenzer and Brighton , who argue that models that focus on the core aspects of decision-making, e.

They also argue that such simplified assumptions make decisions more efficient and also more effective Gigerenzer and Brighton, As stated earlier, one way to model dynamic decision-making in ACT-R using only few assumptions is instance based learning IBL.

This approach uses situation-outcome pairs and subsymbolic strengthening mechanisms for learning. However, IBL is insufficient to model tasks which involve switches in the environment Fum and Stocco, Such tasks require adding explicit switching rules.

Besides these rules, our task needed mechanisms that control when to switch from simple one-feature strategies to more complex strategies. Since meta-cognitive reflections are not part of IBL, we used a mixed modeling approach which incorporates explicit rules and metacognitive reflection.

IBL is insofar part of our approach as the strategies are encoded as situation-outcome pairs and subsymbolic strengthening mechanisms of ACT-R are utilized. To evaluate if our modeling approach of strategy formation and rule switching is in line with how participants perform in such tasks, data reflecting learning success need to be considered.

Such data are the learning curves reported in this paper. We believe that an IBL model alone cannot produce the strong increase in performance after the environmental change in the empirical data. For a further understanding of complex decision-making, other behavioral data, such as reaction times, could also be modeled.

However, not all processes that probably have an impact on reaction time are part of our general modeling approach. This is especially the case for modeling detailed aspects of auditory encoding with ACT-R; for example, the precise encoding of the auditory events can be expected to comprise a different gain in reaction time for short compared with longer tones.

However, our modeling approach is expandable, allowing the incorporation of other cognitive processes such as more specific auditory encoding or attention. This extensibility is one of the strengths of cognitive architectures and is particularly relevant for naturalistic decision-making, where many additional processes eventually need to be considered.

A formal model was built with ACT-R, it specifies the assumptions of dynamic decision-making in category learning. This model was tested on empirical data and showed similar learning behavior. Assumptions about how dynamic decisions in category learning occur, e. ACT-R aims at modeling cognition as a whole, thus addressing different cognitive processes simultaneously, an important aspect for modeling realistic cognitive tasks.

Moreover, the model is flexible. Thus, the model chooses from the available strategies according to previous experience and random influences. Our modeling approach is simple in the sense that it comprises only few plausible assumptions, does not rely on extra parameters and is nevertheless flexible enough to cope with dynamically changing environments.

To test the predictive power of the model, it needs to be further tested and compared to new empirical data that are obtained using slightly different task settings. Our aim was to develop a first model of dynamic decision-making in category learning.

Thus, relevant cognitive processes that occur between stimulus presentation and the actual choice response are included in the model. Furthermore, we wanted to show how a series of decisions emerge in the pursuit of an ultimate goal. Thus, as a first step we needed a decision task that shows characteristics similar to natural dynamic settings.

Such aspects include complex multi-feature stimuli, feedback from the environment, and changing conditions. Since explicit hints on category membership are usually not present in non-experimental situations, it is furthermore reasonable to use a task without explicit instructions regarding which features or stimuli attention should be focused on.

The downside of using unspecific instructions as done in our study is that from the behavioral data, it will remain unclear how exactly individual participants process such a task, since aspects such as which exact rules are followed or which features are considered at the beginning of a task, are uncertain.

As a next step we aim at modeling and predicting the dynamic decision-making course of individual participants. In general, a big advantage of cognitive modeling approaches is that they can predict ongoing cognitive processes at any point in time.

To evaluate the validity of such predictions, different approaches can be followed. One approach to constructing models in accordance with the cognitive processes of participants is the train-to-constrain paradigm Dimov et al. This paradigm requires instructing participants in a detailed step-by-step procedure on how to apply specific strategies in decision tasks.

This approach gives the modeler insight into the strategies that participants are using at a given time point. This again can be used to constrain ACT-R models in the implementation of these strategies.

In future studies, we plan to adopt this paradigm by a instructing the participants and b adjusting our model accordingly. To ensure that the train-to-constrain paradigm was successfully implemented, self-reports of the participants should be used. Another approach is to conduct interviews while the participant is performing the task.

To confirm the model's predictions about the prospective behavior of participants, subjects of future empirical studies should thus be asked about their decisions during the course of the experiment. The first few participant decisions can be expected to be strongly influenced by random aspects e.

Thus, it should allow precise predictions of the subsequent cognitive processes. To make such predictions, a revised model would need to use the first couple of trials as information about the strategy an individual participant initially follows.

In a further step, the exact cognitive processes proposed by the model should be tested on an individual level on more fine grain data e. Currently, different methods to map cognitive models to finer grain data such as fMRI or EEG data have been proposed Borst and Anderson, ; Borst et al.

These methods are currently investigated and have been applied for basic research questions. Nevertheless, mapping cognitive models to neuronal data is a challenge. More research is needed especially for applied tasks. To supplement neuronal data, additional behavioral data, such as button press dynamics e.

Besides using cognitive models to predict individual behavior, we aim to develop more general cognitive mechanisms to model learning, relearning and metacognition that are valid in a broad range of situations. To test the applicability of our modeling approach in a broader context and different situations, variations of the experiment should be tested with different tasks and materials.

For example, the model proposed here should be able to predict data from categorization experiments using visual stimuli such as different types of lamps Zeller and Schmid, with some modifications to the sensory processing of our model.

Furthermore, the model should be capable of predicting data from different types of categorization tasks, for example a task using a different number of categorization features, more switches or different sequences. Such a task would be a predictive challenge for our model; if it succeeds, it can be considered as a predictive model.

The developed general mechanisms can also be used in sensemaking tasks. Sensemaking is an act of finding and interpreting relevant facts amongst the sea of incoming information, including hypothesis updating.

Performance in our task comes close to how people make sense in the real world because it involves a large number of different stimuli, each carrying different specifications of various features. To conclude, such a cognitive model which includes general mechanism for learning, relearning and metacognition can prove extremely useful for predicting individual behavior in a broad range of tasks.

However, uncertainty remains regarding whether this captures the actual processes of human cognition. This is not only due to the fact that human behavior is subject to manifold random influences, but also to the limitation that a model always corresponds to a reduced representation of reality.

The modeler decides which aspects of reality are characterized in the model. Marewski and Mehlhorn tested different modeling approaches for the same decision-making task. While they found that their models differed in terms of how well they predicted the data, they ultimately could not show that the best fitting model definitely resembles the cognitive processes of humans.

To our knowledge, no scientific method is ever able to answer how human cognition definitely works. In general, models can only be compared in terms of their predictive quality e. Which model ultimately corresponds to human reality, on the other hand, cannot be ascertained.

One reason for modeling in cognitive architectures is to implement cognitive mechanisms in support systems for complex scenarios. Such support systems mainly use machine learning algorithms. Unfortunately, those algorithms depend on many trials to learn from before they succeed in categorization or in learning in general.

Srini Pillay , M. is an executive coach and CEO of NeuroBusiness Group. He is also a technology innovator and entrepreneur in the health and leadership development sectors, and an award-winning author.

His latest book is Tinker, Dabble, Doodle, Try: Unlock the Power of the Unfocused Mind. He is also a part-time Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School and teaches in the Executive Education Programs at Harvard Business School and Duke Corporate Education, and is on internationally recognized think tanks.

Partner Center. Create profiles for personalised advertising. Use profiles to select personalised advertising. Create profiles to personalise content.

Use profiles to select personalised content. Measure advertising performance. Measure content performance. Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources.

Develop and improve services. Use limited data to select content. List of Partners vendors. By Elizabeth Yuko. Medically reviewed by Samina Ahmed Jauregui, PsyD. Samina Ahmed Jauregui is a specialty trained sleep psychologist with expertise in non-pharmaceutical, behavioral treatment of sleep disorders.

Other areas of mental health expertise include chronic illness management, pain management, and mood and anxiety difficulties that impact physical health and wellness.

Ahmed has five years of experience in the field of sleep psychology. Learn More. Fact checked by Danielle Slauter. Our Fact-Checking Process. Struggling With Brain Fog? Here's How to Clear Your Head.

Was this page helpful? Thanks for your feedback! Tell us why!