IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic integration of forward planning and heuristic preferences during multiple goal pursuit

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Ott
  • Dimitrije Marković
  • Alexander Strobel
  • Stefan J Kiebel

Abstract

Selecting goals and successfully pursuing them in an uncertain and dynamic environment is an important aspect of human behaviour. In order to decide which goal to pursue at what point in time, one has to evaluate the consequences of one’s actions over future time steps by forward planning. However, when the goal is still temporally distant, detailed forward planning can be prohibitively costly. One way to select actions at minimal computational costs is to use heuristics. It is an open question how humans mix heuristics with forward planning to balance computational costs with goal reaching performance. To test a hypothesis about dynamic mixing of heuristics with forward planning, we used a novel stochastic sequential two-goal task. Comparing participants’ decisions with an optimal full planning agent, we found that at the early stages of goal-reaching sequences, in which both goals are temporally distant and planning complexity is high, on average 42% (SD = 19%) of participants’ choices deviated from the agent’s optimal choices. Only towards the end of the sequence, participant’s behaviour converged to near optimal performance. Subsequent model-based analyses showed that participants used heuristic preferences when the goal was temporally distant and switched to forward planning when the goal was close.Author summary: When we pursue our goals, there is often a moment when we recognize that we did not make the progress that we hoped for. What should we do now? Persevere to achieve the original goal, or switch to another goal? Two features of real-world goal pursuit make these decisions particularly complex. First, goals can lie far into an unpredictable future and second, there are many potential goals to pursue. When potential goals are temporally distant, human decision makers cannot use an exhaustive planning strategy, rendering simpler rules of thumb more appropriate. An important question is how humans adjust the rule of thumb approach once they get closer to the goal. We addressed this question using a novel sequential two-goal task and analysed the choice data using a computational model which arbitrates between a rule of thumb and accurate planning. We found that participants’ decision making progressively improved as the goal came closer and that this improvement was most likely caused by participants starting to plan ahead.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Ott & Dimitrije Marković & Alexander Strobel & Stefan J Kiebel, 2020. "Dynamic integration of forward planning and heuristic preferences during multiple goal pursuit," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-27, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007685
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007685
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007685&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007685?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alireza Soltani & Peyman Khorsand & Clara Guo & Shiva Farashahi & Janet Liu, 2016. "Neural substrates of cognitive biases during probabilistic inference," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Christoph W. Korn & Dominik R. Bach, 2018. "Heuristic and optimal policy computations in the human brain during sequential decision-making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Koen M. M. Frolichs & Gabriela Rosenblau & Christoph W. Korn, 2022. "Incorporating social knowledge structures into computational models," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Eleanor Holton & Jan Grohn & Harry Ward & Sanjay G. Manohar & Jill X. O’Reilly & Nils Kolling, 2024. "Goal commitment is supported by vmPFC through selective attention," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(7), pages 1351-1365, July.
    3. Jacqueline Scholl & Hailey A Trier & Matthew F S Rushworth & Nils Kolling, 2022. "The effect of apathy and compulsivity on planning and stopping in sequential decision-making," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(3), pages 1-38, March.
    4. Longbing Cao & Chengzhang Zhu, 2022. "Personalized next-best action recommendation with multi-party interaction learning for automated decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Mehran Spitmaan & Oihane Horno & Emily Chu & Alireza Soltani, 2019. "Combinations of low-level and high-level neural processes account for distinct patterns of context-dependent choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, October.
    6. Shiva Farashahi & Alireza Soltani, 2021. "Computational mechanisms of distributed value representations and mixed learning strategies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.