Abstract
Abstract
Everyday problems often require choosing among actions with different future consequences, even though fully evaluating those consequences is often computationally infeasible. The human brain is remarkable in its ability to solve such complex problems efficiently. In this paper, we hypothesize that this capacity arises from a principle inspired by Bayesian accounts of perception and sensorimotor control: evidence derived from effortful forward planning is integrated with task-specific preferences akin to priors, weighted by the uncertainty of these preferences. To test this hypothesis, we used a sequential decision-making task with a relatively large state space. Model comparison showed that participants’ deviations from optimal forward planning are best captured by task-specific preferences, rather than by unsystematic errors, recent action-history effects, or offer-context biases. Moreover, the influence of forward planning on participants’ responses depended on preference uncertainty, as evidenced by both choice behavior and reaction times, and preferences were not arbitrary but instead supported above-stochastic performance even in the absence of forward planning. Together, these results are consistent with a Bayesian-inspired interpretation of decision making, in which costly forward planning is integrated with state-dependent priors or preferences. These preferences may provide an inexpensive, quickly available first-pass solution, which is complemented by forward planning when preference-based guidance is uncertain.