Neural dynamics encoding risky choices during deliberation reveal separate choice subspaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human decision-making involves the coordinated activity of multiple brain areas, acting in concert, to enable humans to make choices. Most decisions are carried out under conditions of uncertainty, where the desired outcome may not be achieved if the wrong decision is made. In these cases, humans deliberate before making a choice. The neural dynamics underlying deliberation are unknown and intracranial recordings in clinical settings present a unique opportunity to record high temporal resolution electrophysiological data from many (hundreds) brain locations during behavior. Combined with dynamic systems modeling, these allow identification of latent brain states that describe the neural dynamics during decision-making, providing insight into these neural dynamics and computations. Results show that the neural dynamics underlying risky decision, but not decisions without risk, converge to separate subspaces depending on the subject’s preferred choice and that the degree of overlap between these subspaces declines as choice approaches, suggesting a network level representation of evidence accumulation. These results bridge the gap between regression analyses and data driven models of latent states and suggest that during risky decisions, deliberation and evidence accumulation toward a final decision are represented by the same neural dynamics, providing novel insights into the neural computations underlying human choice. Highlights Highly accurate decoding can be accomplished with dynamical systems modeling that revealed distinct attractor-like subspaces, one for each of the two options (gamble or safe bet). Early during deliberation, single trial neural trajectories show rapid transitioning between these subspaces, but as the time of choice selection approached, the single trial trajectories converged towards one of the subspaces, whose identity was consistent with the subject’s choice. These dynamics are specific to risky decisions as we found classification accuracy dropped to chance for trials where the gamble option was guaranteed to be successful (100% win probability) or unsuccessful (0% win probability). These results suggest that deliberation and evidence accumulation toward a final decision in the presence of any risk can be represented by the same neural dynamics, providing novel insights into the neural computations underlying human choice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".