How attention simplifies mental representations for planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human planning is efficient—it frugally deploys limited cognitive resources to accomplish difficult tasks—and flexible—adapting to novel problems and environments. Computational approaches suggest that people construct simplified mental representations of their environment, balancing the complexity of a task representation with its utility. These models imply a nested optimisation in which planning shapes perception, and perception shapes planning - but the perceptual and attentional mechanisms governing how this interaction unfolds remain unknown. Here, we harness virtual maze navigation to characterise how spatial attention controls which aspects of a task representation enter subjective awareness and are available for planning. We find that spatial proximity governs which aspects of a maze are available for planning, and that when task-relevant information follows natural (lateralised) contours of attention, people can more easily construct simplified and useful maze representations. This influence of attention varies considerably across individuals, explaining differences in people’s task representations and behaviour. Inspired by the ‘spotlight of attention’ analogy, we incorporate the effects of visuospatial attention into existing computational accounts of value-guided construal. Together, our work bridges computational perspectives on perception and decision-making to better understand how individuals represent their environments in aid of planning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".