Trading mental effort for confidence in the metacognitive control of value-based decision-making
- Sorbonne University, France
- Paris Brain Institute (ICM), France
- Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy, Italy
- Translational Neuromodeling Unit (TNU), ETH, Switzerland
Figures
Figure 1
The metacognitive control of decisions.
First, automatic processes provide a ‘pre-effort’ belief about option values. This belief is probabilistic, in the sense that it captures an uncertain prediction regarding the to-be-experienced …
Figure 2
The expected impact of allocated resources onto value representations.
Left panel: the expected absolute mean difference (y-axis) is plotted as a function of the absolute prior mean difference (x-axis) for different amounts of allocated resources (color code), …
Figure 3
Experimental design.
Left: pre-choice item rating session: participants are asked to rate how much they like each food item and how certain they are about it (value certainty rating). Center: choice session: …
Figure 4
Accuracy of model postdictions and out-of-sample predictions.
The mean within-subject (across-trial) correlation between observed and predicted/postdicted data (y-axis) is plotted for each variable (x-axis, from left to right: choice confidence, spreading of …
Figure 5
Three-way relationship between RT, value, and value certainty.
Left panel: Mean standardized regression weights for |ΔVR0| and VCR0 on log-RT (cst is the constant term); error bars represent s.e.m. Right panel: Mean z-scored log-RT (y-axis) is shown as a …
Figure 6
Three-way relationship between subjective effort rating, value, and value certainty.
Same format as Figure 5.
Figure 7
Impact of consequential and penalized conditions on effort-related variables.
Left panel: log-RT: mean standardized regression weights (same format as Figure 4 – left panel, cons = ‘consequential’ condition, pena = ‘penalized’ condition). Right panel: subjective effort …
Figure 8
Three-way relationship between choice confidence, value, and value certainty.
Same format as Figure 5.
Figure 9
Three-way relationship between change of mind, value, and value certainty.
Same format as Figure 5.
Figure 10
Three-way relationship between spreading of alternatives, value, and value certainty.
Same format as Figure 5.
Figure 11
Three-way relationship between value certainty gain, value, and value certainty.
Same format as Figure 5.
Appendix 1—figure 1
Quality of the analytical approximation to .
Upper left panel: the Monte-Carlo estimate of (color-coded) is shown as a function of both the mean (y-axis) and the variance (x-axis) of the parent process . Upper right panel: analytic …
Appendix 1—figure 2
The β-effect: MCD-optimal effort and confidence when effort has no impact on the value difference.
MCD-optimal effort (left) and confidence (right) are shown as a function of the absolute prior mean difference (x-axis) and prior variance (y-axis).
Appendix 1—figure 3
The γ-effect: MCD-optimal effort and confidence when effort has no impact on value precision.
Same format as Appendix 1—figure 2.
Appendix 1—figure 4
MCD-optimal effort and confidence when both types of effort efficacy are operant.
Same format as Appendix 1—figure 2.
Appendix 1—figure 5
Comparison of simulated and estimated MCD parameters.
Left panel: estimated parameters (y-axis) are plotted against simulated parameters (x-axis). Each dot is a Monte-Carlo simulation and different colors indicate distinct parameters (blue: efficacy …
Appendix 1—figure 6
Relationship between choices, pre-choice value ratings, and choice confidence.
Left panel: the probability of choosing the item on the right (y-axis) is shown as a function of the pre-choice value difference (x-axis), for high- (blue) versus low- (red) confidence trials. The …
Appendix 1—figure 7
Relationship between pre-choice value ratings, choice confidence, and response times.
Left panel: response times (y-axis) are plotted as a function of low- and high- |ΔVR0| (x-axis) for both low- (red) and high- (blue) confidence trials. Error bars represent s.e.m. Right panel: A …
Appendix 1—figure 8
Correlation between pupil size and subjective effort ratings during decision time.
Left panel: Mean (± s.e.m.) correlation between pupil size and subjective effort (y-axis) is plotted as a function of peristimulus time (x-axis). Here, epochs are co-registered w.r.t. stimulus onset …
Appendix 1—figure 9
Gaze bias for low- and high-effort trials.
Mean (± s.e.m.) gaze bias is plotted for both low- (left) and high- (right) effort trials.
Appendix 1—figure 10
Accuracy of RT postdictions.
Left panel: The mean within-subject (across-trial) correlation between observed and postdicted RT data (y-axis) is plotted for each model (gray: MCD, blue: DDM1 and DDM2); error bars depict s.e.m. …
Appendix 1—figure 11
Accuracy of out-of-sample change of mind postdictions.
Same format as Appendix 1—figure 10.
Appendix 1—figure 12
Comparisons of MCD model with linear and saturating γ-effects.
Left panel: The mean within-subject (across-trial) correlation between observed and postdicted data (y-axis) is plotted for dependent variable (x-axis, from left to right: choice confidence, …
Appendix 1—figure 13
Comparisons of MCD and model-free postdiction accuracies.
The mean within-subject (across-trial) correlation between observed and postdicted data (y-axis) is plotted for each variable (x-axis, from left to right: choice confidence, spreading of …
Additional files
-
Source data 1
Behavioral data.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/63282/elife-63282-data1-v2.mat
-
Source code 1
Analysis code.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/63282/elife-63282-code1-v2.zip
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/63282/elife-63282-transrepform-v2.docx
