The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical decision theory and trade-offs in the control of motor response
Abstract
We present a novel approach to the modeling of motor responses based on statistical decision theory. We begin with the hypothesis that subjects are ideal motion planners who choose movement trajectories to minimize expected loss. We derive predictions of the hypothesis for movement in environments where contact with specified regions carries rewards or penalties. The model predicts shifts in a subject's aiming point in response to changes in the reward and penalty structure of the environment and with changes in the subject's uncertainty in carrying out planned movements. We tested some of these predictions in an experiment where subjects were rewarded if they succeeded in touching a target region on a computer screen within a specified time limit. Near the target was a penalty region which, if touched, resulted in a penalty. We varied distance between the penalty region and the target and the cost of hitting the penalty region. Subjects shift their mean points of contact with the computer screen in response to changes in penalties and location of the penalty region relative to the target region in qualitative agreement with the predictions of the hypothesis. Thus, movement planning takes into account extrinsic costs and the subject's own motor uncertainty.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model
Flash, T., & Hogan, N. (1985) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.05-07-01688.1985 · Cited by 4,395
Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning
Harris, C. M., & Wolpert, D. M. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/29528 · Cited by 2,498
Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements
Desmurget, M., & Grafton, S. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01537-0 · Cited by 1,300 · cited 1×
“It is clear that movement trajectories also depend on visual feedback (for reviews, see Connolly and Goodale, 1999; Desmurget and Grafton, 2000).”
Cited by
The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation
Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.10.007 · Cited by 2,588
The neural basis of metacognitive ability
Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0417 · Cited by 747
Decision theory, reinforcement learning, and the brain
Dayan, P., & Daw, N. D. (2008) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.8.4.429 · Cited by 580
Knowing how much you don't know: a neural organization of uncertainty estimates
Bach, D. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3289 · Cited by 339
Task and context determine where you look
Rothkopf, C. A., Ballard, D. H., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2016) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/7.14.16 · Cited by 366
Metadata
- Authors
- Maloney, L., Landy, M., & Trommershäuser, J.
- Venue
- Spatial Vision
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-275
- ISSN
- 0169-1015 (ISSN-L)
- 1568-5683
- OpenAlex
- W2063245310
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical decision theory and trade-offs in the control of motor response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1163/156856803322467527
- The paper
- Maloney, L., Landy, M., & Trommershäuser, J. (2003). Statistical decision theory and trade-offs in the control of motor response. Spatial Vision. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856803322467527
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.