Exploring when to exploit: the cognitive underpinnings of foraging-type decisions in relation to psychopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairments in reinforcement learning (RL) might underlie the tendency of individuals with elevated psychopathic traits to behave exploitatively, as they fail to learn from their mistakes. Most studies on the topic have focused on binary choices, while everyday functioning requires us to learn the value of multiple options. In this study, we evaluated the cognitive correlates of naturalistic foraging-type decision-making and their electrophysiological signatures in a community sample (n = 108) with varying degrees of psychopathic traits. Reinforcers with different salience were included in a foraging-type decision-making task. Recruitment of various cognitive processes was estimated with a computational model and electrophysiology, and the relationships to psychopathic traits were assessed. Higher Antisocial traits were associated with a bias towards expecting more volatility in the environment when high-salience reinforcers were used. Additionally, higher levels of Interpersonal traits were associated with reduced learning from personalized rewards, as evidenced by reductions in the prediction errors (PEs) about rate of change. Higher Affective traits were associated with lower PEs and aberrant learning from painful punishments. Lastly, the PEs about rate of change were reflected in the trial-wise trajectories of Feedback-Related Negativity event-related potentials. Together, our results point to the importance of volatility processing in understanding aberrant decision-making in relation to psychopathy, demonstrate the relationships between psychopathic traits and learning through reward and punishment, and emphasise the potentially more beneficial effect of personalized rewards and punishment for improving reinforcement-based decision-making in individuals with elevated psychopathic traits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".