Parametric shift from rational to irrational decisions in mice

Abstract

In the classical view of economic choices, subjects make rational decisions evaluating the costs and benefits of options in order to maximize their overall income. Nonetheless, subjects often fail to reach optimal outcomes. The overt value of an option drives the direction of decisions, but covert factors such as emotion and sensitivity to sunk cost are thought to drive the observed deviations from optimality. Many questions remain to be answered as to (1) which contexts contribute the most to deviation from an optimal solution; and (2) the extent of these effects. In order to tackle these questions, we devised a decision-making task for mice, in which cost and benefit parameters could be independently and flexibly adjusted and for which a tractable optimal solution was known. Comparing mouse behavior with this optimal solution across parameter settings revealed that the factor most strongly contributing to suboptimal performance was the cost parameter. The quantification of sensitivity to sunk cost, a covert factor implicated in our task design, revealed it as another contributor to reduced optimality. In one condition where the large reward option was particularly unattractive and the small reward cost was low, the sensitivity to sunk cost and the cost-led suboptimality almost vanished. In this regime and this regime only, mice could be viewed as close to rational (here, ‘rational’ refers to a state in which an animal makes decisions basing on objective valuation, not covert factors). Taken together, our results suggest that “rationality” is a task-specific construct even in mice.

Foraging Under Uncertainty Follows the Marginal Value Theorem with Bayesian Updating of Environment Representations

“…predation), as well as their variability on multiple time scales [Morris and Davidson, 2000, Brown, 1988, 1989, Orrock et al, 2004]. Given their predilection for such tasks, and the wide use of rodents in systems neuroscience, recent laboratory studies have utilized foraging constructs to explore behavioral strategies and their underlying neurophysiological mechanisms [Kane et al, 2022, 2017, Lottem et al, 2018, Wikenheiser et al, 2013, Kvitsiani et al, 2013, Sweis et al, 2018, Schneider et al, 2021, Carter and Redish, 2016]. However, replicating the dynamics of natural foraging in an experimental setting is difficult.…”

Evolution and function of neurocognitive systems in non-human animals

“…Behavioural studies are extremely valuable in testing theories of adaptation (e.g., natural pedagogy in dogs 17 ), emotional processing (e.g., in dogs 18 ), rationality (e.g., in mice 19 ), decision-making (e.g., in pigeons 20 ), learning (e.g., in bees 21 ), and memory (e.g., in cuttlefish 22 ; in mice 23 ), but they can also reveal intriguing possible relationships, such as between behaviour, brain mass, and lifespan, as shown by Kaplan 24 in Australian native birds. Animals raised in laboratories give scientists the possibility to study specific cognitive abilities in naïve individuals (e.g., the use of sensory cues in social learning in naïve gerbils 25 ) and allow scientists to control for experience, especially in early life (e.g., the effect of early life stress on memory formation in the nematode C. elegans 26 ; the effect of long-lasting social isolation and re-socialization on cognitive performance and brain activity in Octodon degus 27 ).…”