1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Metacontrol of decision-making strategies in human aging

  1. Florian Bolenz  Is a corresponding author
  2. Wouter Kool
  3. Andrea Reiter
  4. Ben Eppinger
  1. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
  2. Harvard University, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 3
  • Views 1,803
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e49154 doi: 10.7554/eLife.49154

Abstract

Humans employ different strategies when making decisions. Previous research has reported reduced reliance on model-based strategies with aging, but it remains unclear whether this is due to cognitive or motivational factors. Moreover, it is not clear how aging affects the metacontrol of decision making, i.e. the dynamic adaptation of decision-making strategies to varying situational demands. In this cross-sectional study, we tested younger and older adults in a sequential decision-making task that dissociates model-free and model-based strategies. In contrast to previous research, model-based strategies led to higher payoffs. Moreover, we manipulated the costs and benefits of model-based strategies by varying reward magnitude and the stability of the task structure. Compared to younger adults, older adults showed reduced model-based decision making and less adaptation of decision-making strategies. Our findings suggest that aging affects the metacontrol of decision-making strategies and that reduced model-based strategies in older adults are due to limited cognitive abilities.

Data availability

Experimental data as well as analysis scripts are available online at https://osf.io/xne7c/?view_only=2dc70606bede44d5a982556ac8fbe0aa

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Florian Bolenz

    Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    For correspondence
    florian.bolenz@tu-dresden.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2213-1071
  2. Wouter Kool

    Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Andrea Reiter

    Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ben Eppinger

    Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

German Research Foundation (SFB 940/2 B7)

  • Ben Eppinger

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants gave informed written consent. The ethics committee of Technische Universität Dresden approved the study (reference number EK 519122015).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Thorsten Kahnt, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: June 7, 2019
  2. Accepted: August 8, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 9, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 21, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Bolenz et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,803
    Page views
  • 217
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jack Goffinet et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Increases in the scale and complexity of behavioral data pose an increasing challenge for data analysis. A common strategy involves replacing entire behaviors with small numbers of handpicked, domain-specific features, but this approach suffers from several crucial limitations. For example, handpicked features may miss important dimensions of variability, and correlations among them complicate statistical testing. Here, by contrast, we apply the variational autoencoder (VAE), an unsupervised learning method, to learn features directly from data and quantify the vocal behavior of two model species: the laboratory mouse and the zebra finch. The VAE converges on a parsimonious representation that outperforms handpicked features on a variety of common analysis tasks, enables the measurement of moment-by-moment vocal variability on the timescale of tens of milliseconds in the zebra finch, provides strong evidence that mouse ultrasonic vocalizations do not cluster as is commonly believed, and captures the similarity of tutor and pupil birdsong with qualitatively higher fidelity than previous approaches. In all, we demonstrate the utility of modern unsupervised learning approaches to the quantification of complex and high-dimensional vocal behavior.

    1. Neuroscience
    Iris Bachmutsky et al.
    Short Report Updated

    Opioids are perhaps the most effective analgesics in medicine. However, between 1999 and 2018, over 400,000 people in the United States died from opioid overdose. Excessive opioids make breathing lethally slow and shallow, a side-effect called opioid-induced respiratory depression. This doubled-edged sword has sparked the desire to develop novel therapeutics that provide opioid-like analgesia without depressing breathing. One such approach has been the design of so-called ‘biased agonists’ that signal through some, but not all pathways downstream of the µ-opioid receptor (MOR), the target of morphine and other opioid analgesics. This rationale stems from a study suggesting that MOR-induced ß-arrestin 2 dependent signaling is responsible for opioid respiratory depression, whereas adenylyl cyclase inhibition produces analgesia. To verify this important result that motivated the ‘biased agonist’ approach, we re-examined breathing in ß-arrestin 2-deficient mice and instead find no connection between ß-arrestin 2 and opioid respiratory depression. This result suggests that any attenuated effect of ‘biased agonists’ on breathing is through an as-yet defined mechanism.