Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

Cognitive effort discounting (COG-ED) paradigm.

Task structure including N-back practice, effort discounting, and N-back re-do.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Table 1.

N-back response times (correct trials), d' (all trials) for YA and OA.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Self-report NASA Task Load Index Scores (scale: 0–21) by level, N.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Figure 2.

Subjective value of rewards for task engagement across multiple levels of the N-back for OA and YA.

Subjective value decreases linearly with load (N). OA discount more than YA at all levels (N = 2–4). SE are shown. nYA = 25 participants * 6 levels = 150 and nOA = 25 participant * 4 levels = 100. Data also included for illustrative purposes in [51].

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 3.

Multilevel models of subjective value, as predicted by performance (d'), mean response time (mRT, seconds), and N-back level.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Figure 3.

Area under the cognitive effort discounting curve predicts Need for Cognition.

Need for Cognition as predicted by Area Under the Curve of subjective value for levels N = 2–4 of the N-back. n = 50 participants.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Table 4.

Multilevel model of subjective value, as predicted by performance (d'), mean response time (mRT, seconds), and N-back level.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Figure 4.

Area under the cognitive effort discounting curve predicts delay discounting.

Area under the curves: for effort, averaged across $1 and $5 offers, levels N = 2–4; for delay, averaged across $1,000 and $25,000 offers, delays from one week to ten years. n = 33 participants.

More »

Figure 4 Expand