Approximate planning in spatial search.
How people plan is an active area of research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. However, tasks traditionally used to study planning in the laboratory tend to be constrained to artificial environments, such as Chess and bandit problems. To date there is still no agreed-...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | PLoS Computational Biology |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012582 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | How people plan is an active area of research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. However, tasks traditionally used to study planning in the laboratory tend to be constrained to artificial environments, such as Chess and bandit problems. To date there is still no agreed-on model of how people plan in realistic contexts, such as navigation and search, where values intuitively derive from interactions between perception and cognition. To address this gap and move towards a more naturalistic study of planning, we present a novel spatial Maze Search Task (MST) where the costs and rewards are physically situated as distances and locations. We used this task in two behavioral experiments to evaluate and contrast multiple distinct computational models of planning, including optimal expected utility planning, several one-step heuristics inspired by studies of information search, and a family of planners that deviate from optimal planning, in which action values are estimated by the interactions between perception and cognition. We found that people's deviations from optimal expected utility are best explained by planners with a limited horizon, however our results do not exclude the possibility that in human planning action values may be also affected by cognitive mechanisms of numerosity and probability perception. This result makes a novel theoretical contribution in showing that limited planning horizon generalizes to spatial planning, and demonstrates the value of our multi-model approach for understanding cognition. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1553-734X 1553-7358 |