Models, movements, and minds: bridging the gap between decision making and action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision making is a fundamental cognitive function, which not only determines our day-to-day choices but also shapes the trajectories of our movements, our lives, and our societies. While immense progress has been made in recent years on our understanding of the mechanisms underlying decision making, research on this topic is still largely split into two halves. Good-based models largely state that decisions are made between representations of abstract value associated with available options; while action-based models largely state that decisions are made at the level of action representations. These models are further divided between those that state that a decision is made before an action is specified, and those that regard decision making as an evolving process that continues until movement completion. Here, we review computational models, behavioral findings, and results from neural recordings associated with these frameworks. In synthesizing this literature, we submit that decision making is best understood as a continuous, graded, and distributed process that traverses a landscape of behaviorally relevant options, from their presentation until movement completion. Identifying and understanding the intimate links between decision making and action processing has important implications for the study of complex, goal-directed behaviors such as social communication, and for elucidating the underlying mechanisms by which decisions are formed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".