Short-term memory capacity and chronic stress levels predict cognitive effort choice as a function of reward level and effort demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Every day, we make choices about how much effort we are willing and able to use to achieve the outcomes we desire against the backdrop of constantly shifting effort demands and available rewards. While factors like visual short-term memory and chronic stress levels can predict responses to stable cognitive effort demands, we do not yet know whether they constrain one’s choices of higher effort trials for larger rewards when task demands and potential outcomes shift over time. Here, we examined whether these factors predicted the choice to deploy cognitive effort given increasing effort demands and the tendency to deploy effort given shifting reward availability. Undergraduate participants first performed an online visual short-term memory task to assess capacity for visuospatial short-term memory. They then completed a series of choice trials where they could choose between high-effort, high-reward or low-effort, low-reward trials. In two blocks, we varied either the effort required on high-effort trials or the reward offered on both trial types. We found that visual short-term memory predicted the likelihood of choosing high-effort trials given shifting rewards, while chronic stress and everyday preferences for cognitively effortful strategies predicted the tendency to deploy increasing amounts of effort for a stable reward. Furthermore, participants’ subjective reports show a strong focus on attentional processes, and balancing rewards and losses, when making decisions about how much effort to deploy. These findings shed light on distinct trait-level factors associated with cognitive effort choices given shifting demands and outcomes. Significance statement We must often choose how much work to put in to complete everyday tasks. However, we do not know what behavioural factors drive these choices in humans when the effort required to complete a task - or potential rewards - shifts over time. In a visual short-term memory task adapted from rodent work, we found that those with higher visual short-term memory ability chose more high effort trials as effort demands increased, while chronic stress and everyday preferences for effortful strategies predicted more effort for a reward. Furthermore, participants described prioritizing sustaining attention in order to successfully complete the task. These findings shed light on distinct trait-level factors associated with cognitive effort choices given shifting demands and outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".