The Cost of Imagined Actions in a Reward-Valuation Task

Growing evidence suggests that humans and other animals assign value to a stimulus based not only on its inherent rewarding properties, but also on the costs of the action required to obtain it, such as the cost of time. Here, we examined whether such cost also occurs for mentally simulated actions. Healthy volunteers indicated their subjective value for snack foods while the time to imagine performing the action to obtain the different stimuli was manipulated. In each trial, the picture of one food item and a home position connected through a path were displayed on a computer screen. The path could be either large or thin. Participants first rated the stimulus, and then imagined moving the mouse cursor along the path from the starting position to the food location. They reported the onset and offset of the imagined movements with a button press. Two main results emerged. First, imagery times were significantly longer for the thin than the large path. Second, participants liked significantly less the snack foods associated with the thin path (i.e., with longer imagery time), possibly because the passage of time strictly associated with action imagery discounts the value of the reward. Importantly, such effects were absent in a control group of participants who performed an identical valuation task, except that no action imagery was required. Our findings hint at the idea that imagined actions, like real actions, carry a cost that affects deeply how people assign value to the stimuli in their environment.

Rats exhibit similar biases in foraging and intertemporal choice tasks

Animals, including humans, consistently exhibit myopia in two different contexts: foraging, in which they harvest locally beyond what is predicted by optimal foraging theory, and intertemporal choice, in which they exhibit a preference for immediate vs. delayed rewards beyond what is predicted by rational (exponential) discounting. Despite the similarity in behavior between these two contexts, previous efforts to reconcile these observations in terms of a consistent pattern of time preferences have failed. Here, via extensive behavioral testing and quantitative modeling, we show that rats exhibit similar time preferences in both contexts: they prefer immediate vs. delayed rewards and they are sensitive to opportunity costs of delays to future decisions. Further, a quasi-hyperbolic discounting model, a form of hyperbolic discounting with separate components for short- and long-term rewards, explains individual rats’ time preferences across both contexts, providing evidence for a common mechanism for myopic behavior in foraging and intertemporal choice.

Often decisions have to be made on whether to stick with a resource or leave it behind to search for a better alternative. Should you book that hotel room or continue looking at others? Is it time to start searching for a new job, or even for a new partner? Animals face similar 'stick or twist' decisions when foraging for food. Knowing how to maximize the amount of food you obtain is key to survival. Studies have shown that most animals tend to stick with a food source for a little too long, a phenomenon known as 'overharvesting'.

To find out why, Kane et al. designed carefully controlled experiments to compare foraging behavior in rats to another form of decision-making, known as intertemporal choice. The latter involves choosing between a small reward now versus a larger reward later. Given this choice, most rats opt to receive a smaller reward now rather than wait for the larger reward. This suggests that rats value rewards available in the future less than rewards they can get immediately.

Kane et al. showed that this preference for short-term rewards can also explain why rats overharvest in foraging scenarios. By leaving one food source to go in search of another, rats must put up with a delay before they can access the new food supply. This delay, due to the time required to travel and search, reduces the value of the future reward. As a result, rats are more likely to stick with their current food source, even though leaving it would yield a greater reward in the long run.

These findings in rats raise important questions about the mechanisms that lead to biases in thinking, and how factors like changes in the environment or specific disease states can influence these biases.