PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Gian Luca Lancia AU - Mattia Eluchans AU - Marco D’Alessandro AU - Hugo J. Spiers AU - Giovanni Pezzulo TI - Humans account for cognitive costs when finding shortcuts: An information-theoretic analysis of navigation AID - 10.1101/2022.08.06.503020 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - bioRxiv PG - 2022.08.06.503020 4099 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/23/2022.08.06.503020.short 4100 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/23/2022.08.06.503020.full AB - When faced with navigating back somewhere we have been before we might either retrace our steps or seek a shorter path. Both choices have costs. Here, we ask whether it is possible to characterize formally the choice of navigational plans as a bounded rational process that trades off the quality of the plan (e.g., its length) and the cognitive cost required to find and implement it. We analyze the navigation strategies of two groups of people that are firstly trained to follow a “default policy” taking a route in a virtual maze and then asked to navigate to various known goal destinations, either in the way they want (“Go To Goal”) or by taking novel shortcuts (“Take Shortcut”). We address these wayfinding problems using InfoRL: an information-theoretic approach that formalizes the cognitive cost of devising a navigational plan, as the informational cost to deviate from a well-learned route (the “default policy”). In InfoRL, optimality refers to finding the best trade-off between route length and the amount of control information required to find it. We report five main findings. First, the navigational strategies automatically identified by InfoRL correspond closely to different routes (optimal or suboptimal) in the virtual reality map, which were annotated by hand in previous research. Second, people deliberate more in places where the value of investing cognitive resources (i.e., relevant goal information) is greater. Third, compared to the group of people who receive the “Go To Goal” instruction, those who receive the “Take Shortcut” instruction find shorter but less optimal solutions, reflecting the intrinsic difficulty of finding optimal shortcuts. Fourth, those who receive the “Go To Goal” instruction modulate flexibly their cognitive resources, depending on the benefits of finding the shortcut. Finally, we found a surprising amount of variability in the choice of navigational strategies and resource investment across participants. Taken together, these results illustrate the benefits of using InfoRL to address navigational planning problems from a bounded rational perspective.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.