Dr Craig Hedge

Supervisor Details

Contact Details

Scientific Background

Research Interests

My recent research has focused on individual differences in cognitive control and decision-making. I am interested in whether the speed and accuracy of our decisions in simple lab-based tasks can tell us about the way people approach the decisions they face in their daily lives. More broadly, I am interested in the development of reliable and meaningful measures of cognition. Other research interests include working memory, visual attention, and impulsivity. I have used a variety of approaches to study this, including cognitive modelling, eye tracking and neuroimaging.

Scientific Inspiration

I’ve had many inspirational colleagues over the years (including senior, peers, and junior colleagues). I’ve found it useful to incorporate ways of doing things from a variety of people rather than one single person.

Research Groups

Cognition and Neuroscience Research Group (CNRG)

Aston Research Centre for Health in Ageing (ARCHA)

Aston Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN)

Supervision Style

In three words or phrases: Laid-back, supportive, understanding.

Provision of Training

I prefer to take responsibility for your technical training at first, leading to more independence later. It is good to try to find solutions to things yourself, but I encourage my students to discuss things and ask for help when needed.

Progression Monitoring and Management

I expect to be kept up to date more regularly in the early stages, where we might set priorities on a weekly/monthly basis. In the later stages I will expect you to take full ownership of your progression but come to me when you need help troubleshooting. I know that the rate of progression can vary and that learning a new technique can take time.

Communication

I value collegiality and my door is always open. I often have chats with student about broader issues in the field (e.g. current controversies) or non-work topics, but I’m open to establishing a mode of communication that suits us both.

I like to think that my students feel comfortable discussing pastoral issues with me and I will support them as much as I am able.

I try to avoid sending emails out-of-hours so as not to set an expectation that you should always be working. I am fairly laid back and don’t expect immediate replies to non-urgent emails (which is most of them!).

PhD Students can expect scheduled meetings with me:

In a group meeting

At least once per fortnight

In year 1 of PhD study

At least once per fortnight

In year 2 of PhD study

At least once per fortnight

In year 3 of PhD study

At least once per fortnight

These meetings will be a mixture of face to face, via video chat or telephone, and I am usually contactable for an instant response (if required) on every working day.

Working Pattern

The timing of work in my lab is completely flexible, and (other than attending pre-arranged meetings), I expect students to manage their own time.

Notice Period for Feedback

I need at least 1 week’s notice to provide feedback on written work of up to 5000 words.

MIBTP Project Details

Current Projects (2025-26)

Primary supervisor for:

Characterising caution in ageing and decision making

See the PhD Opportunities section to see if this project is currently open for applications via MIBTP.

Please Note: The main page lists projects via BBSRC Research Theme(s) quoted and then relevant Topic(s).

Characterising caution in ageing and decision making

Secondary Supervisor(s): Professor Richard Tunney

University of Registration: Aston University

BBSRC Research Themes: Integrated Understanding of Health (Ageing)

Project Outline

How much information should you wait for before making a decision? We can act quickly at the risk of making a mistake, or we can take our time to ensure we make the correct choice. While “caution” is fundamental to theoretical decision-making models in psychology and neuroscience, we do not know if it captures how decisions are made in the real world. Caution should be flexible because different situations require a different balance of speed and accuracy. For a radiologist examining a patient’s x-ray for signs of tumours, there are grave consequences for not spending long enough on the task. In contrast, the choice of which socks we put on in the morning usually carries no long-term consequences. However, there are also stable individual differences in caution. Slow response times in older adults have traditionally been interpreted to reflect a decreased ability to process information, but there is recent evidence indicating that older adults are more likely to slow their responses to avoid making errors (i.e. they are more “cautious”). Understanding these age-related changes in decision making is critical to supporting functional ability in older adults, as we will adopt different interventions if we assume older adults struggle to process information vs. assuming that they are more risk averse. The aim of this project is to characterise caution in speeded-decision tasks and evaluate the extent to which it predicts real-world decision-making, with a focus on healthy ageing. This will be achieved through three objectives.

Objective 1 will test whether a general dimension of caution exists in reaction time tasks.

Objective 2 is to test whether we can compare levels of caution between younger and older adults.

Objective 3 is to examine whether caution in reaction time tasks predicts real-world decision-making

Methods

In widely used mathematical models of choice reaction time, the trade-off between accuracy and speed is captured by a threshold or “response caution” parameter. We can estimate an individual’s level of “caution” in a task by fitting the model to empirical data from human participants tested either online or in the lab. This project will focus on how caution measured in one speeded-choice task relates to others, as well as how it relates to decisions and strategies in other measures. This will involve statistical techniques such as factor analysis and structural equation modelling. There is also scope to use electroencephalography to understand whether common neural mechanisms underlie caution in different tasks.

Key References

Hedge, C. et al. (2020). Self-reported impulsivity does not predict response caution. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110257.

Nolte, J., & Hanoch, Y. (2023). Adult age differences in risk perception and risk taking. Current opinion in psychology, 101746.