ArticleScientific reports2025
Heuristic pruning of decision trees at low probabilities and probability discounting in sequential planning in young and older adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When planning an action sequence, it has been shown that humans prune decision trees to reduce computational complexity, instead of considering all possible options. However, little is understood about pruning employed in probabilistic environments, where actions result in multiple outcomes with varying probabilities, and how decision biases, such as discounting of probabilistic rewards, influence decisions. This study investigates whether participants prune low-probability options in a three-step decision-making task and analyzes the impact of probability discounting on planning. Potential age-related differences in planning strategies are explored in groups of young (aged 18-35 years; n = 57) and older (aged 65-75 years; n = 50) adults. By using reinforcement-learning modeling and model comparison, we show that participants reduce computational demands by pruning decision tree branches of lower probability-a highly efficient strategy in this environment. Additionally, participants reduce their planning depth, i.e., the number of considered steps. Planning is further influenced by discounting high-probability outcomes. Older individuals show stronger reductions in planning depth, an increase in decision noise, and more pronounced probability discounting, which contributes to the observed age-related decline in planning performance. Our findings suggest directions for future research to elucidate the underlying meta-control mechanisms guiding the application of planning strategies.
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.