ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021
A Reinforcement Learning Approach to Understanding Procrastination: Does Inaccurate Value Approximation Cause Irrational Postponing of a Task?
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Procrastination is the voluntary but irrational postponing of a task despite being aware that the delay can lead to worse consequences. It has been extensively studied in psychological field, from contributing factors, to theoretical models. From value-based decision making and reinforcement learning (RL) perspective, procrastination has been suggested to be caused by non-optimal choice resulting from cognitive limitations. Exactly what sort of cognitive limitations are involved, however, remains elusive. In the current study, we examined if a particular type of cognitive limitation, namely, inaccurate valuation resulting from inadequate state representation, would cause procrastination. Recent work has suggested that humans may adopt a particular type of state representation called the successor representation (SR) and that humans can learn to represent states by relatively low-dimensional features. Combining these suggestions, we assumed a dimension-reduced version of SR. We modeled a series of behaviors of a "student" doing assignments during the school term, when putting off doing the assignments (i.e., procrastination) is not allowed, and during the vacation, when whether to procrastinate or not can be freely chosen. We assumed that the "student" had acquired a rigid reduced SR of each state, corresponding to each step in completing an assignment, under the policy without procrastination. The "student" learned the approximated value of each state which was computed as a linear function of features of the states in the rigid reduced SR, through temporal-difference (TD) learning. During the vacation, the "student" made decisions at each time-step whether to procrastinate based on these approximated values. Simulation results showed that the reduced SR-based RL model generated procrastination behavior, which worsened across episodes. According to the values approximated by the "student," to procrastinate was the better choice, whereas not to procrastinate was mostly better according to the true values. Thus, the current model generated procrastination behavior caused by inaccurate value approximation, which resulted from the adoption of the reduced SR as state representation. These findings indicate that the reduced SR, or more generally, the dimension reduction in state representation, can be a potential form of cognitive limitation that leads to procrastination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.