MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035880713 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-14-s1-p408

Biomechanical costs of reaching movements bias perceptual decisions

2013· article· en· W2035880713 on OpenAlexaff
Encarni Marcos, Ignasi Cos, Paul Cisek, Benoît Girard, Paul F. M. J. Verschure

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTask (project management)Computer scienceNeuroscienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptual decision-making has been widely studied using tasks in which subjects are presented with a visual stimulus and are instructed to select between two alternative options, based on a visual feature of the stimulus. Several studies have reported that the subjects' performance depends on the difficulty to indentify that specific feature. However, if we view decision-making as a continuous process that includes not only perceptual discrimination but also motor action one would expect that the cost of this action will have an impact on decision-making during the action preparation phase. We investigated this hypothesis with a combined theoretical and experimental approach. We setup a psychophysical task with human subjects, consisting of two blocks. In the first block, subjects either had to perform one of four right- or left-ward reaching movements, each with different biomechanical costs, or to make decisions between these right or left reaching movements. The movements were organised in two arrangements: one in which the movement towards the right implied a larger biomechanical cost than the movement towards the left, and one in which the costs were reversed. In the second block, subjects performed a moving dots perceptual discrimination task with different levels of coherence (right or left motion), and reported their decision with a reaching movement to the right or to the left using one of the aforementioned manipulations. As previously reported [1], we observed that when subjects freely chose between reaching movements of varying biomechanical cost, they exhibited a strong bias towards those movements with lower cost. Here, we report that this bias also influenced the motion-discrimination task, as subjects exhibited a tendency to perform the less costly movement when the ambiguity of the stimulus was high. The influence of the biomechanical bias declined as the ambiguity decreased. These results suggest that biomechanical costs are assessed and influence decisions even when the correct response does not depend on the properties of the motor apparatus. To study how visual and biomechanical information might be integrated to make decisions we use a mean-field approach of a binary decision-making model [2].The model consists of two populations of excitatory neurons that are responsive to left or right motion and that compete through mutual inhibition. We propose that even if the decision itself should exclusively depend on a single factor (motion direction), additional factors, such as biomechanics, may also influence the decision-making process. Simulation results show that a constant signal related to the biomechanical cost is necessary and sufficient to explain the probability of choice and reaction time in our motion discrimination task. Interestingly, the model shows that for same motion coherence the activation of the network is higher when the dots move toward the direction reported with the less costly movement than when they move towards the more costly one. An open question is whether the neural activity in the supplementary motor area, dorsal premotor cortex and primary motor cortex exhibit correlates of this biomechanical factor.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207