↓ Skip to main content

How Accumulated Real Life Stress Experience and Cognitive Speed Interact on Decision-Making Processes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Accumulated Real Life Stress Experience and Cognitive Speed Interact on Decision-Making Processes
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Friedel, Miriam Sebold, Sören Kuitunen-Paul, Stephan Nebe, Ilya M. Veer, Ulrich S. Zimmermann, Florian Schlagenhauf, Michael N. Smolka, Michael Rapp, Henrik Walter, Andreas Heinz

Abstract

Rationale: Advances in neurocomputational modeling suggest that valuation systems for goal-directed (deliberative) on one side, and habitual (automatic) decision-making on the other side may rely on distinct computational strategies for reinforcement learning, namely model-free vs. model-based learning. As a key theoretical difference, the model-based system strongly demands cognitive functions to plan actions prospectively based on an internal cognitive model of the environment, whereas valuation in the model-free system relies on rather simple learning rules from operant conditioning to retrospectively associate actions with their outcomes and is thus cognitively less demanding. Acute stress reactivity is known to impair model-based but not model-free choice behavior, with higher working memory capacity protecting the model-based system from acute stress. However, it is not clear which impact accumulated real life stress has on model-free and model-based decision systems and how this influence interacts with cognitive abilities. Methods: We used a sequential decision-making task distinguishing relative contributions of both learning strategies to choice behavior, the Social Readjustment Rating Scale questionnaire to assess accumulated real life stress, and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test to test cognitive speed in 95 healthy subjects. Results: Individuals reporting high stress exposure who had low cognitive speed showed reduced model-based but increased model-free behavioral control. In contrast, subjects exposed to accumulated real life stress with high cognitive speed displayed increased model-based performance but reduced model-free control. Conclusion: These findings suggest that accumulated real life stress exposure can enhance reliance on cognitive speed for model-based computations, which may ultimately protect the model-based system from the detrimental influences of accumulated real life stress. The combination of accumulated real life stress exposure and slower information processing capacities, however, might favor model-free strategies. Thus, the valence and preference of either system strongly depends on stressful experiences and individual cognitive capacities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 25%
Neuroscience 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 29 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,179,671
of 25,746,891 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,758
of 7,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,244
of 423,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#64
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,746,891 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.