ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Learning expectations shape cognitive control allocation.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linear and nonlinear effects of Spatial and Temporal attention: human data and drift diffusion model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Learning expectations shape cognitive control allocation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current models frame the allocation of cognitive control as a process of expected utility maximization. The benefits of a candidate control signal are weighed against its costs (e.g., opportunity costs). Recent theorizing has found that, despite promoting the counterintuitive behavior of longer deliberation, which is less rewarding in the short term, it is nevertheless normative to account for the value of learning when determining control allocation. Here, we sought to test this proposal by examining whether people were willing to allocate greater control and thereby expend greater effort (e.g., deliberate for longer) when they perceived a task to be learnable compared to when they did not. We found that participants' proficiency and learning rate in the first block of a simple perceptual dot-motion task were able to predict their willingness to deliberate in a second block. These findings support the hypothesis that agents consider learnability when allocating cognitive control, and comply with a formal model of control allocation that considers the future discounted value of learning on reward.
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.