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

Laura A Bustamante, Temitope Oshinowo, Jeremy R Lee, Elizabeth Tong, Allison R Burton, Amitai Shenhav, Jonathan D Cohen, Nathaniel D Daw
Author Information
  1. Laura A Bustamante: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. ORCID
  2. Temitope Oshinowo: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. ORCID
  3. Jeremy R Lee: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544.
  4. Elizabeth Tong: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. ORCID
  5. Allison R Burton: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544.
  6. Amitai Shenhav: Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912. ORCID
  7. Jonathan D Cohen: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. ORCID
  8. Nathaniel D Daw: Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. ORCID

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7 [PMID: 16717171]
  2. PLoS Biol. 2021 Dec 7;19(12):e3001487 [PMID: 34874935]
  3. Neuroimage. 2020 Aug 1;216:116745 [PMID: 32278095]
  4. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Jul;134(3):330-43 [PMID: 20403583]
  5. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2015 Dec;15(4):837-53 [PMID: 25917000]
  6. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021 Sep;25(9):757-775 [PMID: 34332856]
  7. Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Jan;19(1):46-54 [PMID: 25487706]
  8. Psychol Rev. 2022 Apr;129(3):564-585 [PMID: 34383523]
  9. J Neurosci. 2014 Jan 8;34(2):646-55 [PMID: 24403162]
  10. J Neurosci. 2011 Oct 12;31(41):14693-707 [PMID: 21994386]
  11. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017 Jul 25;40:99-124 [PMID: 28375769]
  12. Cognition. 2023 Jul;236:105418 [PMID: 36871398]
  13. Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Dec;36(6):661-79 [PMID: 24304775]
  14. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2009 Mar;106(3):857-64 [PMID: 19131473]
  15. PLoS One. 2017 Jan 11;12(1):e0169938 [PMID: 28076387]
  16. Neuron. 2013 Jul 24;79(2):217-40 [PMID: 23889930]
  17. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 May;1104:340-56 [PMID: 17360802]
  18. J Neurophysiol. 2010 Jul;104(1):313-21 [PMID: 20463204]
  19. Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 9;11(1):3417 [PMID: 32647271]
  20. Psychol Sci. 2015 Jun;26(6):826-33 [PMID: 25911124]
  21. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(10):e1002716 [PMID: 23055916]
  22. Nat Protoc. 2006;1(1):308-13 [PMID: 17406250]
  23. Science. 2012 Apr 6;336(6077):95-8 [PMID: 22491854]
  24. Behav Neurosci. 2021 Apr;135(2):192-201 [PMID: 34060875]
  25. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012 Dec;22(6):1027-38 [PMID: 22766486]
  26. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 Nov;139(4):665-82 [PMID: 20853993]
  27. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Dec;143(6):2074-81 [PMID: 25347535]
  28. PLoS Biol. 2020 Oct 12;18(10):e3000793 [PMID: 33044952]
  29. Psychol Rev. 2012 Apr;119(2):431-40 [PMID: 22329683]
  30. Biol Psychiatry. 2013 Jul 15;74(2):130-6 [PMID: 23394903]
  31. PLoS Biol. 2017 Feb 24;15(2):e1002598 [PMID: 28234892]
  32. J Neurosci. 2012 May 2;32(18):6170-6 [PMID: 22553023]
  33. Schizophr Bull. 2015 Sep;41(5):1055-65 [PMID: 26209546]
  34. Behav Res Methods. 2015 Mar;47(1):1-12 [PMID: 24683129]
  35. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2021 Oct;21(5):936-947 [PMID: 34075542]
  36. PLoS One. 2023 Aug 17;18(8):e0290177 [PMID: 37590223]
  37. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2022 Nov;7(11):1158-1169 [PMID: 35952972]
  38. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 22;8(7):e68210 [PMID: 23894295]
  39. Elife. 2016 Mar 01;5: [PMID: 26928075]
  40. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2022 Jun;22(3):509-532 [PMID: 34850362]
  41. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Jul;102:371-381 [PMID: 31047891]
  42. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Apr;22(4):337-349 [PMID: 29477776]
  43. Cogn Sci. 2009 May;33(3):497-529 [PMID: 21585478]
  44. PLoS One. 2020 Oct 14;15(10):e0239817 [PMID: 33052978]
  45. J Neurosci. 2022 Jul 20;42(29):5730-5744 [PMID: 35688627]
  46. J Pers Assess. 1984 Jun;48(3):306-7 [PMID: 16367530]
  47. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jun 05;14(7):933-9 [PMID: 21642973]
  48. Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 06;6:95 [PMID: 25774140]
  49. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016 Sep;145(9):1093-101 [PMID: 27359127]
  50. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 11;10(2):e0117057 [PMID: 25671436]
  51. PLoS One. 2009 Aug 12;4(8):e6598 [PMID: 19672310]
  52. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Dec;131:1275-1287 [PMID: 34710515]
  53. Neuron. 2021 Jun 16;109(12):2025-2040.e7 [PMID: 34019810]
  54. J Neurosci. 2009 Sep 30;29(39):12315-20 [PMID: 19793990]
  55. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23178 [PMID: 21853083]
  56. Cognition. 2010 Dec;117(3):341-7 [PMID: 20864094]
  57. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007 Apr;191(3):507-20 [PMID: 17031711]
  58. Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 8;9(1):1689 [PMID: 30737422]
  59. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016 May;125(4):528-536 [PMID: 26999282]
  60. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018 Mar 23;12:52 [PMID: 29628879]
  61. Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-S11 [PMID: 17443116]
  62. Brain. 2018 May 1;141(5):1455-1469 [PMID: 29672668]
  63. J Affect Disord. 2016 May 15;196:97-100 [PMID: 26919058]
  64. BMJ. 2023 Jun 7;381:1135 [PMID: 37286200]
  65. Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Oct;7(10):1667-1681 [PMID: 37414886]
  66. J R Soc Interface. 2021 Jul;18(180):20210337 [PMID: 34255987]
  67. PLoS Biol. 2012 Feb;10(2):e1001266 [PMID: 22363208]
  68. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022 Mar 18;7(1):23 [PMID: 35301624]
  69. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2023 Jan 28;78(1):40-50 [PMID: 36242777]
  70. Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):129-36 [PMID: 1273796]
  71. Psychol Assess. 2018 Sep;30(9):1237-1248 [PMID: 29620381]
  72. Neuropsychologia. 2019 Feb 4;123:92-105 [PMID: 29750987]
  73. Psychol Sci. 2008 Aug;19(8):802-8 [PMID: 18816288]
  74. J Vis. 2013 Jan 01;13(3):10 [PMID: 23641077]
  75. Psychiatry Res. 2014 Dec 30;220(3):874-82 [PMID: 25262638]
  76. J Neurosci. 2017 Jun 7;37(23):5681-5689 [PMID: 28483979]
  77. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13 [PMID: 11556941]
  78. Neuropsychologia. 2019 Feb 4;123:41-54 [PMID: 29944865]
  79. Br J Psychiatry. 1995 Jul;167(1):99-103 [PMID: 7551619]
  80. Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan 2;30(1):3-41 [PMID: 21702807]
  81. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2023 Jul;8(7):687-694 [PMID: 35948258]
  82. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014 May;123(2):387-97 [PMID: 24886012]
  83. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012 Aug;121(3):553-8 [PMID: 22775583]
  84. Schizophr Bull. 2014 Nov;40(6):1328-37 [PMID: 24657876]
  85. Neuroimage. 2000 May;11(5 Pt 1):424-46 [PMID: 10806029]

Grants

  1. R01 MH124849/NIMH NIH HHS
  2. T32 DA007261/NIDA NIH HHS
  3. T32 MH065214/NIMH NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Humans
Decision Making
Physical Exertion
Individuality
Cognition
Reward
Motivation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0effortcognitivephysicalforagingpatchdifferencescostdecisionsrewardscostsrelationshipindividualcomputationaleffort-basedrewardEffortForagingTaskquantifychoseharvestingnewperceivedcorrelationmotivationcorrelationsEffort-basedpeopleweighpotentialfuturerequiredachieveinvolvethoughmechanisticyetunderstooduseapproachisolatemeasureprocessesunderlyingtestassociationdomainsPatchecologicallyvalidratemaximizationproblemwell-developedtheoreticaltoolsdevelopedembeddedindirectlyeffectschoicesParticipantsdepletingtravelingcostlytimeParticipants'exitthresholdsreflectingexpectedreceivetravelsensitivedemandsallowingusmonetarytermsindirectsequentialchoicestylerevealedeffort-seekingbehaviorminorityparticipantspreferringhighlowapparentlymissedmanypreviousapproachesIndividualpositivelycorrelatedsuggestingprocessedcommonusedcanonicalanalysisprobetaskmeasuresself-reportedaffectfoundanxietyfunctionbehavioralactivationself-efficacysimilarrevealspositivehumanscontrolpsychiatrydecision-making

Similar Articles

Cited By (7)