Abstract
How do we make good decisions in uncertain environments? In psychology and neuroscience, the classic view is that we calculate the value of each option, compare them, and choose the most rewarding modulo exploratory noise. An ethologist, conversely, would argue that we commit to one option until its value drops below a threshold and then explore alternatives. Because the fields use incompatible methods, it remains unclear which view better describes human decision-making. Here, we found that humans use compare-to-threshold computations in classic compare-alternative tasks. Because compare-alternative computations are central to the reinforcement-learning (RL) models typically used in the cognitive and brain sciences, we developed a novel compare-to-threshold model ("foraging"). Compared to previous RL models, the foraging model better fit participant behavior, better predicted the tendency to repeat choices, and predicted held-out participants that were almost impossible under compare-alternative models. These results suggest that humans use compare-to-threshold computations in sequential decision-making.