Sunk cost sensitivity in mice, rats, and humans on the Restaurant Row and WebSurf tasks cannot be explained by attrition biases alone

In a recent bioRxiv preprint, Ott et al. argue that sensitivities to sunk costs that have been reported in two serial foraging tasks (the Restaurant Row task in mice and rats, and the Web-Surf task in humans) may be due to simple consequences of the way that subjects perform these tasks and not due to an actual sensitivity to sunk costs. However, several variants of these tasks have been studied, in which the sensitivity to sunk costs changes. In order to test the Ott et al. model against these experimental observations, we simulated the model under these additional experimental conditions. We find that it is incompatible with the actual data. While we applaud the simplicity of the Ott et al. model, we must reject it as an explanation for the observed sensitivity to sunk costs seen in these tasks. We thus conclude that the alternative explanation - that mice, rats, and humans are sensitive to actual sunk costs in these tasks - is a better explanation for the data.

High-speed particle detection and tracking in microfluidic devices using event-based sensing

Event-based sensing offers unique advantages in terms of cost, sensitivity and compatibility with standard microscopes for high-throughput particle imaging in microfluidic systems.

Abnormal cognitive effort allocation and its association with amotivation in first-episode psychosis

BackgroundAbnormal effort-based decision-making represents a potential mechanism underlying motivational deficits (amotivation) in psychotic disorders. Previous research identified effort allocation impairment in chronic schizophrenia and focused mostly on physical effort modality. No study has investigated cognitive effort allocation in first-episode psychosis (FEP).MethodCognitive effort allocation was examined in 40 FEP patients and 44 demographically-matched healthy controls, using Cognitive Effort-Discounting (COGED) paradigm which quantified participants’ willingness to expend cognitive effort in terms of explicit, continuous discounting of monetary rewards based on parametrically-varied cognitive demands (levels N of N-back task). Relationship between reward-discounting and amotivation was investigated. Group differences in reward-magnitude and effort-cost sensitivity, and differential associations of these sensitivity indices with amotivation were explored.ResultsPatients displayed significantly greater reward-discounting than controls. In particular, such discounting was most pronounced in patients with high levels of amotivation even when N-back performance and reward base amount were taken into consideration. Moreover, patients exhibited reduced reward-benefit sensitivity and effort-cost sensitivity relative to controls, and that decreased sensitivity to reward-benefit but not effort-cost was correlated with diminished motivation. Reward-discounting and sensitivity indices were generally unrelated to other symptom dimensions, antipsychotic dose and cognitive deficits.ConclusionThis study provides the first evidence of cognitive effort-based decision-making impairment in FEP, and indicates that decreased effort expenditure is associated with amotivation. Our findings further suggest that abnormal effort allocation and amotivation might primarily be related to blunted reward valuation. Prospective research is required to clarify the utility of effort-based measures in predicting amotivation and functional outcome in FEP.