IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v8y2024i5d10.1038_s41562-024-01814-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic computational phenotyping of human cognition

Author

Listed:
  • Roey Schurr

    (Harvard University)

  • Daniel Reznik

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences)

  • Hanna Hillman

    (Yale University)

  • Rahul Bhui

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Samuel J. Gershman

    (Harvard University
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Computational phenotyping has emerged as a powerful tool for characterizing individual variability across a variety of cognitive domains. An individual’s computational phenotype is defined as a set of mechanistically interpretable parameters obtained from fitting computational models to behavioural data. However, the interpretation of these parameters hinges critically on their psychometric properties, which are rarely studied. To identify the sources governing the temporal variability of the computational phenotype, we carried out a 12-week longitudinal study using a battery of seven tasks that measure aspects of human learning, memory, perception and decision making. To examine the influence of state effects, each week, participants provided reports tracking their mood, habits and daily activities. We developed a dynamic computational phenotyping framework, which allowed us to tease apart the time-varying effects of practice and internal states such as affective valence and arousal. Our results show that many phenotype dimensions covary with practice and affective factors, indicating that what appears to be unreliability may reflect previously unmeasured structure. These results support a fundamentally dynamic understanding of cognitive variability within an individual.

Suggested Citation

  • Roey Schurr & Daniel Reznik & Hanna Hillman & Rahul Bhui & Samuel J. Gershman, 2024. "Dynamic computational phenotyping of human cognition," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(5), pages 917-931, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01814-x
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01814-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01814-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-024-01814-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    2. Stefano Palminteri & Mehdi Khamassi & Mateus Joffily & Giorgio Coricelli, 2015. "Contextual modulation of value signals in reward and punishment learning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Eran Eldar & Yael Niv, 2015. "Interaction between emotional state and learning underlies mood instability," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, May.
    4. Haoxue Fan & Samuel J. Gershman & Elizabeth A. Phelps, 2023. "Trait somatic anxiety is associated with reduced directed exploration and underestimation of uncertainty," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 102-113, January.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    7. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clémentine Bouleau & Nicolas Jacquemet & Maël Lebreton, 2025. "How large is "large enough" ? Large-scale experimental investigation of the reliability of confidence measures," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-04893009, HAL.
    2. Marta Kryven & Suhyoun Yu & Max Kleiman-Weiner & Tomer Ullman & Joshua Tenenbaum, 2024. "Approximate planning in spatial search," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-21, November.

    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. Jacob K Goeree & Bernardo Garcia-Pola, 2023. "A Non-Parametric Test of Risk Aversion," Papers 2308.02083, arXiv.org.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    4. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    5. Holzmeister, Felix, 2017. "oTree: Ready-made apps for risk preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-38.
    6. Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea & Pierno, Donato, 2024. "From Measurements to Measures: Learning Risk Preferences under Different Risk Elicitation Methods," MPRA Paper 121590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    8. Fabien Perez & Guillaume Hollard & Radu Vranceanu, 2021. "How serious is the measurement-error problem in risk-aversion tasks?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 319-342, December.
    9. Murong Yang & Laurence S. J. Roope & James Buchanan & Arthur E. Attema & Philip M. Clarke & A. Sarah Walker & Sarah Wordsworth, 2022. "Eliciting risk preferences that predict risky health behavior: A comparison of two approaches," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 836-858, May.
    10. Maël Lebreton & Karin Bacily & Stefano Palminteri & Jan B Engelmann, 2019. "Contextual influence on confidence judgments in human reinforcement learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, April.
    11. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    12. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain, 2024. "A Note on an Alternative Approach to Experimental Design of Lottery Prospects," MPRA Paper 119743, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2020. "Risk reduction in compulsory disaster insurance: Experimental evidence on moral hazard and financial incentives," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    14. Rachit Dubey & Thomas L Griffiths & Peter Dayan, 2022. "The pursuit of happiness: A reinforcement learning perspective on habituation and comparisons," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-32, August.
    15. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    16. Anwesha Bandyopadhyay & Lutfunnahar Begum & Philip J. Grossman, 2021. "Gender differences in the stability of risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 169-201, October.
    17. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk, 2016. "What can multiple price lists really tell us about risk preferences?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 89-106, December.
    18. Antonio Filippin & Marco Mantovani, 2023. "Risk aversion and information aggregation in binary‐asset markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), pages 753-798, May.
    19. Irene Mussio & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés & Abdul H Kidwai, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes in the time of COVID-19: an experimental study," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 163-182.
    20. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    21. Aurélie Bonein & Stéphane Turolla, 2023. "Spatial competition with demand uncertainty: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 906-939, October.

    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:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01814-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.