Differences in learning across the lifespan emerge via resource-rational computations.

IF 5.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1037/rev0000526
Rasmus Bruckner, Matthew R Nassar, Shu-Chen Li, Ben Eppinger
{"title":"Differences in learning across the lifespan emerge via resource-rational computations.","authors":"Rasmus Bruckner, Matthew R Nassar, Shu-Chen Li, Ben Eppinger","doi":"10.1037/rev0000526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learning accurate beliefs about the world is computationally demanding but critical for adaptive behavior across the lifespan. Here, we build on an established framework formalizing learning as predictive inference and examine the possibility that age differences in learning emerge from efficient computations that consider available cognitive resources differing across the lifespan. In our resource-rational model, beliefs are updated through a sampling process that stops after reaching a criterion level of accuracy. The sampling process navigates a trade-off between belief accuracy and computational cost, with more samples favoring belief accuracy and fewer samples minimizing costs. When cognitive resources are limited or costly, a maximization of the accuracy-cost ratio requires a more frugal sampling policy, which leads to systematically biased beliefs. Data from two lifespan studies (<i>N</i> = 129 and <i>N</i> = 90) and one study in younger adults (<i>N</i> = 94) show that children and older adults display biases characteristic of a more frugal sampling policy. This is reflected in (a) more frequent perseveration when participants are required to update from previous beliefs and (b) a stronger anchoring bias when updating beliefs from an externally generated value. These results are qualitatively consistent with simulated predictions of our resource-rational model, corroborating the assumption that the identified biases originate from sampling. Our model and results provide a unifying perspective on perseverative and anchoring biases, show that they can jointly emerge from efficient belief-updating computations, and suggest that resource-rational adjustments of sampling computations can explain age-related changes in adaptive learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"556-580"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000526","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Learning accurate beliefs about the world is computationally demanding but critical for adaptive behavior across the lifespan. Here, we build on an established framework formalizing learning as predictive inference and examine the possibility that age differences in learning emerge from efficient computations that consider available cognitive resources differing across the lifespan. In our resource-rational model, beliefs are updated through a sampling process that stops after reaching a criterion level of accuracy. The sampling process navigates a trade-off between belief accuracy and computational cost, with more samples favoring belief accuracy and fewer samples minimizing costs. When cognitive resources are limited or costly, a maximization of the accuracy-cost ratio requires a more frugal sampling policy, which leads to systematically biased beliefs. Data from two lifespan studies (N = 129 and N = 90) and one study in younger adults (N = 94) show that children and older adults display biases characteristic of a more frugal sampling policy. This is reflected in (a) more frequent perseveration when participants are required to update from previous beliefs and (b) a stronger anchoring bias when updating beliefs from an externally generated value. These results are qualitatively consistent with simulated predictions of our resource-rational model, corroborating the assumption that the identified biases originate from sampling. Our model and results provide a unifying perspective on perseverative and anchoring biases, show that they can jointly emerge from efficient belief-updating computations, and suggest that resource-rational adjustments of sampling computations can explain age-related changes in adaptive learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人一生中学习的差异是通过资源理性计算产生的。
学习关于世界的准确信念需要计算,但对整个生命周期的适应性行为至关重要。在这里,我们建立了一个将学习形式化为预测推理的既定框架,并研究了学习中的年龄差异来自有效计算的可能性,该计算考虑了整个生命周期中可用的认知资源的差异。在我们的资源理性模型中,信念通过采样过程更新,该过程在达到标准精度水平后停止。采样过程在信念准确性和计算成本之间进行权衡,更多的样本有利于信念准确性,而更少的样本使成本最小化。当认知资源有限或昂贵时,准确性成本比的最大化需要更节俭的抽样策略,这会导致系统性的偏见信念。来自两项寿命研究(N = 129和N = 90)和一项针对年轻人的研究(N = 94)的数据表明,儿童和老年人表现出更节俭抽样政策的偏见特征。这反映在(a)当参与者被要求从先前的信念更新时,更频繁的坚持;(b)当从外部生成的值更新信念时,更强的锚定偏见。这些结果在质量上与我们的资源理性模型的模拟预测一致,证实了确定的偏差源于抽样的假设。我们的模型和结果为持久性和锚定偏差提供了一个统一的视角,表明它们可以共同产生于有效的信念更新计算,并表明采样计算的资源理性调整可以解释适应性学习中与年龄相关的变化。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
Future-oriented mental time travel and self-reinforcement. A theory of multiattribute search and choice. Cognitive constraints and reward environments jointly shape memory formation. Do congruency effects in Navon's and Stroop's paradigms reflect the same (control) mechanisms? A conceptual analysis and an empirical test. Discourse referents in infancy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1