Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jul 22;8(7):e68210.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068210. Print 2013.

What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference

Affiliations

What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference

Andrew Westbrook et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

It has long been assumed that people treat cognitive effort as costly, but also that such effort costs may vary greatly across individuals. Individual differences in subjective effort could present a major and pervasive confound in behavioral and neuroscience assessments, by conflating cognitive ability with cognitive motivation. Self-report cognitive effort scales have been developed, but objective measures are lacking. In this study, we use the behavioral economic approach of revealed preferences to quantify subjective effort. Specifically, we adapted a well-established discounting paradigm to measure the extent to which cognitive effort causes participants to discount monetary rewards. The resulting metrics are sensitive to both within-individual factors, including objective load and reward amount, and between-individual factors, including age and trait cognitive engagement. We further validate cognitive effort discounting by benchmarking it against well-established measures of delay discounting. The results highlight the promise and utility of behavioral economic tools for assessing trait and state influences on cognitive motivation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cognitive effort discounting (COG-ED) paradigm.
Task structure including N-back practice, effort discounting, and N-back re-do.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Subjective value of rewards for task engagement across multiple levels of the N-back for OA and YA.
Subjective value decreases linearly with load (N). OA discount more than YA at all levels (N = 2–4). SE are shown. nYA = 25 participants * 6 levels = 150 and nOA = 25 participant * 4 levels = 100. Data also included for illustrative purposes in .
Figure 3
Figure 3. Area under the cognitive effort discounting curve predicts Need for Cognition.
Need for Cognition as predicted by Area Under the Curve of subjective value for levels N = 2–4 of the N-back. n = 50 participants.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Area under the cognitive effort discounting curve predicts delay discounting.
Area under the curves: for effort, averaged across $1 and $5 offers, levels N = 2–4; for delay, averaged across $1,000 and $25,000 offers, delays from one week to ten years. n = 33 participants.

References

    1. Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
    1. Taylor SE (1981) The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In: Harvey JH, editor. Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 189–211.
    1. Kool W, McGuire JT, Rosen ZB, Botvinick MM (2010) Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 139: 665–682 doi:10.1037/a0020198 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hull CL (1943) Principles of behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
    1. McGuire J, Botvinick M (2010) Prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, and the registration of decision costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 7922. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types