Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37032563›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2023

Pushing the Bounds of Bounded Optimality and Rationality.

Sebastian Musslick, Javier Masís

Erratum issuedAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Learning expectations shape cognitive control allocation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sebastian MusslickDepartment of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University.
Javier MasísPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University.

Funding

NRSA Training Grant in Quantitative NeuroscienceT32MH065214 · NIMH · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI Nathaniel Douglass Daw, KENNETH A NORMAN · 2002 to 2026
$7.9M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH065214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All forms of cognition, whether natural or artificial, are subject to constraints of their computing architecture. This assumption forms the tenet of virtually all general theories of cognition, including those deriving from bounded optimality and bounded rationality. In this letter, we highlight an unresolved puzzle related to this premise: what are these constraints, and why are cognitive architectures subject to cognitive constraints in the first place? First, we lay out some pieces along the puzzle edge, such as computational tradeoffs inherent to neural architectures that give rise to rational bounds of cognition. We then outline critical next steps for characterizing cognitive bounds, proposing that some of these bounds can be subject to modification by cognition and, as such, are part of what is being optimized when cognitive agents decide how to allocate cognitive resources. We conclude that these emerging views may contribute to a more holistic perspective on the nature of cognitive bounds, as well as their alteration subject to cognition.

Indexed as

CognitionHumansBounded rationalityCognitive constraintsCognitive controlLearningMeta-reasoningMultitaskingNeural network architecturesRational inattention

Identifiers

PMID37032563
PMCPMC10317311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.