Changes of Mind after Movement Onset Depend on the State of the Motor System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision-making is traditionally described as a cognitive process of deliberation followed by commitment to an action choice, preceding the planning and execution of the chosen action. However, this is challenged by recent data suggesting that during situated decisions, multiple options are specified simultaneously and compete in premotor cortical areas for selection and execution. Previous studies focused on the competition during planning and left unaddressed the dynamics of decisions during movement. Does deliberation extend into the execution phase? Are nonselected options still considered? Here we studied a decision-making task in which human participants were instructed to select a reaching path trajectory from an origin to a rectangular target, where reward was distributed nonuniformly at the target. Critically, we applied mechanical perturbations to the arm during movement to study under which conditions such perturbations produce changes of mind. Our results show that participants initially selected the direction of movement toward the highest reward region and changed their mind most frequently when the two choices offered the same reward, showing that deliberation continues and follows cost-benefit considerations during movement. Furthermore, changes of mind were dependent on the intensity of the perturbation and the current state of the motor system, including velocity and distance to targets. Although reward remains most relevant, our results indicate that the state of the motor system when the perturbation occurs is a crucial determinant of changes of mind.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it