MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006469780 · doi:10.1152/jn.00613.2019

Reaching decisions during ongoing movements

2020· article· en· W3006469780 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Michalski, Andrea M. Green, Paul Cisek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Action (physics)Computer scienceInternal modelDeliberationTask (project management)Process (computing)PreferenceCognitive psychologyMovement (music)Point (geometry)PsychologyControl (management)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations77
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207