Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39755854›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Humans rationally balance detailed and temporally abstract world models.

Ari E Kahn, Nathaniel D Daw

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Trauma-predictive brain network connectivity adaptively responds to mild acute stress.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ari E KahnPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. arik@princeton.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2127-0507
Nathaniel D DawPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5029-1430

Funding

Differentiating reward seeking and loss avoidance with reference-dependent learning modelsR01MH121093 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI DAW, NATHANIEL DOUGLASS, SHOHAMY, DAPHNA · 2019 to 2022
$2.1M
John Templeton Foundation (JTF) 61454NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH121093U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R01MH121093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do people model the world's dynamics to guide mental simulation and evaluate choices? One prominent approach, the Successor Representation (SR), takes advantage of temporal abstraction of future states: by aggregating trajectory predictions over multiple timesteps, the brain can avoid the costs of iterative, multi-step mental simulation. Human behavior broadly shows signatures of such temporal abstraction, but finer-grained characterization of individuals' strategies and their dynamic adjustment remains an open question. We developed a task to measure SR usage during dynamic, trial-by-trial learning. Using this approach, we find that participants exhibit a mix of SR and model-based learning strategies that varies across individuals. Further, by dynamically manipulating the task contingencies within-subject to favor or disfavor temporal abstraction, we observe evidence of resource-rational reliance on the SR, which decreases when future states are less predictable. Our work adds to a growing body of research showing that the brain arbitrates between approximate decision strategies. The current study extends these ideas from simple habits into usage of more sophisticated approximate predictive models, and demonstrates that individuals dynamically adapt these in response to the predictability of their environment.

Identifiers

PMID39755854
PMCPMC11700031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.