ArticleNature human behaviour2022
Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 33 papers.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Planning in the Brain: It's Not What You Think It Is.Annual review of neuroscience · 2026Review
- Active inference as a model of collision avoidance behavior in human drivers.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Procedural trial generation for cognitive assessment: An executive function planning task.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Learning to select computations in recurrent neural circuits.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A Resource-Rational Account of Human Eye Movements During Immersive Visual Search.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Article
- No Evidence of Transfer of Learning Between Problem-Solving Tasks Using Different Transformation Rules.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Humans Select Subgoals That Balance Immediate and Future Cognitive Costs During Physical Assembly.Cognitive science · 2025Article
- Computational basis of hierarchical and counterfactual information processing.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Heuristic pruning of decision trees at low probabilities and probability discounting in sequential planning in young and older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Early versus late noise differentially enhances or degrades context-dependent choice.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Adaptive planning depth in human problem-solving.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Disentangling the Component Processes in Complex Planning Impairments Following Ventromedial Prefrontal Lesions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Replay shapes abstract cognitive maps for efficient social navigation.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Approximate planning in spatial search.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Building machines that learn and think with people.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Humans adaptively deploy forward and backward prediction.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- A recurrent network model of planning explains hippocampal replay and human behavior.Nature neuroscience · 2024Article
- Spatial evolution of the proton-coupled Mott transition in correlated oxides for neuromorphic computing.Science advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Making good decisions requires thinking ahead, but the huge number of actions and outcomes one could consider makes exhaustive planning infeasible for computationally constrained agents, such as humans. How people are nevertheless able to solve novel problems when their actions have long-reaching consequences is thus a long-standing question in cognitive science. To address this question, we propose a model of resource-constrained planning that allows us to derive optimal planning strategies. We find that previously proposed heuristics such as best-first search are near optimal under some circumstances but not others. In a mouse-tracking paradigm, we show that people adapt their planning strategies accordingly, planning in a manner that is broadly consistent with the optimal model but not with any single heuristic model. We also find systematic deviations from the optimal model that might result from additional cognitive constraints that are yet to be uncovered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35484209What 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.