Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36750498›Full record

ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2023

Measuring cognitive effort without difficulty.

Hugo Fleming, Oliver J Robinson, Jonathan P Roiser

Erratum issuedFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2023. 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hugo FlemingInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AZ, UK. hugo.fleming@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5421-8222
Oliver J RobinsonInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Jonathan P RoiserInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AZ, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00030/12Medical Research Council MR/R020817/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important finding in the cognitive effort literature has been that sensitivity to the costs of effort varies between individuals, suggesting that some people find effort more aversive than others. It has been suggested this may explain individual differences in other aspects of cognition; in particular that greater effort sensitivity may underlie some of the symptoms of conditions such as depression and schizophrenia. In this paper, we highlight a major problem with existing measures of cognitive effort that hampers this line of research, specifically the confounding of effort and difficulty. This means that behaviour thought to reveal effort costs could equally be explained by cognitive capacity, which influences the frequency of success and thereby the chance of obtaining reward. To address this shortcoming, we introduce a new test, the Number Switching Task (NST), specially designed such that difficulty will be unaffected by the effort manipulation and can easily be standardised across participants. In a large, online sample, we show that these criteria are met successfully and reproduce classic effort discounting results with the NST. We also demonstrate the use of Bayesian modelling with this task, producing behavioural parameters which can be associated with other measures, and report a preliminary association with the Need for Cognition scale.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMotivationBayes TheoremCognitionHumansRewardAnhedoniaCognitive effortComputational psychiatryDepressionIndividual differencesNew measures

Identifiers

PMID36750498
PMCPMC10050044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read36
identifiers read1
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.