Metacontrol of decision-making strategies in human aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When making decisions, humans employ different strategies which are commonly formalized as model-free and model-based reinforcement learning. While previous research has reported reduced model-based control with aging, it remains unclear whether this is due to limited cognitive capacities or a reduced willingness to engage in an effortful strategy. 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. To this end, we tested younger and older adults in a sequential decision-making task that dissociates model-free and model-based control. In contrast to previous research, in this study we applied a task in which model-based control led to higher payoffs in terms of monetary reward. Moreover, we manipulated the costs and benefits associated with model-based control by varying reward magnitude as well as the stability of the task structure. Compared to younger adults, older adults showed reduced reliance on model-based decision making and less adaptation of decision-making strategies to varying costs and benefits of model-based control. Our findings suggest that aging affects the dynamic metacontrol of decision-making strategies and that reduced model-based control in older adults is due to limited cognitive abilities to represent the structure of the task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".