Reaching decisions during ongoing movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurophysiological studies suggest that when decisions are made between concrete actions, the selection process involves a competition between potential action representations in the same sensorimotor structures involved in executing those actions. However, it is unclear how such models can explain situations, often encountered during natural behavior, in which we make decisions while were are already engaged in performing an action. Does the process of deliberation characterized in classical studies of decision-making proceed the same way when subjects are deciding while already acting? In the present study, human subjects continuously tracked a target moving in the horizontal plane and were occasionally presented with a new target to which they could freely choose to switch at any time, whereupon it became the new tracked target. We found that the probability of choosing to switch increased with decreasing distance to the new target and increasing size of the new target relative to the tracked target, as well as when the direction to the new target was aligned (either toward or opposite) to the current tracking direction. However, contrary to our expectations, subjects did not choose targets that minimized the energetic costs of execution, as calculated by a biomechanical model of the arm. When the constraints of continuous tracking were removed in variants of the task involving point-to-point movements, the expected preference for lower cost choices was seen. These results are discussed in the context of current theories of nested feedback control, internal models of forward dynamics, and high-dimensional neural spaces. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Current theories of decision-making primarily address how subjects make decisions before executing selected actions. However, in our daily lives we often make decisions while already performing some action (e.g., while playing a sport or navigating through a crowd). To gain insight into how current theories can be extended to such “decide-while-acting” scenarios, we examined human decisions during continuous manual tracking and found some intriguing departures from how decisions are made in classical “decide-then-act” paradigms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".