Distinct computational mechanisms of uncertainty processing explain opposing exploratory behaviors in anxiety and apathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decision-making in uncertain environments often leads to varied outcomes. Understanding how individuals interpret the causes of unexpected feedback is crucial for adaptive behavior and mental well-being. Uncertainty can be broadly categorized into two components: volatility and stochasticity. Volatility is about how quickly conditions change, impacting results. Stochasticity, on the other hand, refers to outcomes affected by random chance or “luck”. Understanding these factors enables individuals to have more effective environmental analysis and strategy implementation (explore or exploit) for future decisions. This study investigates how anxiety and apathy, two prevalent affective states, influence the perceptions of uncertainty and exploratory behavior. Participants (N = 1001) completed a restless three-armed bandit task that was analyzed using latent state models. Anxious individuals perceived uncertainty as more volatile, leading to increased exploration and learning rates, especially after reward omission. Conversely, apathetic individuals viewed uncertainty as more stochastic, resulting in decreased exploration and learning rates. The perceived volatility-to-stochasticity ratio mediated the anxiety-exploration relationship post-adverse outcomes. Dimensionality reduction showed exploration and uncertainty estimation to be distinct but related latent factors shaping a manifold of adaptive behavior that is modulated by anxiety and apathy. These findings reveal distinct computational mechanisms for how anxiety and apathy influence decision-making, providing a framework for understanding cognitive and affective processes in neuropsychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".