Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in understanding the neural and cognitive dynamics that drive sequential decision making in general and foraging behavior in particular. Due to the intrinsic properties of most sequential decision-making paradigms, however, previous research in this area has suffered from the difficulty to disentangle properties of the decision related to (a) the value of switching to a new patch versus, which increases monotonically, and (b) the conflict experienced between choosing to stay or leave, which first increases but then decreases after reaching the point of indifference between staying and switching. Here, we show how the same problems arise in studies of sequential decision-making under risk, and how they can be overcome, taking as a specific example recent research on the 'pig' dice game. In each round of the 'pig' dice game, people roll a die and accumulate rewards until they either decide to proceed to the next round or lose all rewards. By combining simulation-based dissections of the task structure with two experiments, we show how an extension of the standard paradigm, together with cognitive modeling of decision-making processes, allows to disentangle properties related to either switch value or choice conflict. Our study elucidates the cognitive mechanisms of sequential decision making and underscores the importance of avoiding potential pitfalls of paradigms that are commonly used in this research area.

To invest effort into any cognitive task, people must be sufficiently motivated. Whereas prior research has focused primarily on how the cognitive control required to complete these tasks is motivated by the potential rewards for success, it is also known that control investment can be equally motivated by the potential negative consequence for failure. Previous theoretical and experimental work has yet to examine how positive and negative incentives differentially influence the manner and intensity with which people allocate control. Here, we develop and test a normative model of control allocation under conditions of varying positive and negative performance incentives. Our model predicts, and our empirical findings confirm, that rewards for success and punishment for failure should differentially influence adjustments to the evidence accumulation rate versus response threshold, respectively. This dissociation further enabled us to infer how motivated a given person was by the consequences of success versus failure.

The human brain has the impressive capacity to adapt how it processes information to high-level goals. While it is known that these cognitive control skills are malleable and can be improved through training, the underlying plasticity mechanisms are not well understood. Here, we develop and evaluate a model of how people learn when to exert cognitive control, which controlled process to use, and how much effort to exert. We derive this model from a general theory according to which the function of cognitive control is to select and configure neural pathways so as to make optimal use of finite time and limited computational resources. The central idea of our Learned Value of Control model is that people use reinforcement learning to predict the value of candidate control signals of different types and intensities based on stimulus features. This model correctly predicts the learning and transfer effects underlying the adaptive control-demanding behavior observed in an experiment on visual attention and four experiments on interference control in Stroop and Flanker paradigms. Moreover, our model explained these findings significantly better than an associative learning model and a Win-Stay Lose-Shift model. Our findings elucidate how learning and experience might shape people's ability and propensity to adaptively control their minds and behavior. We conclude by predicting under which circumstances these learning mechanisms might lead to self-control failure.