Cited by 209Embodied and Extended CognitionMotor Control and AdaptationNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Embodied choice: how action influences perceptual decision making

Open access
Lepora, Nathan F., Pezzulo, Giovanni·2015·PLOS Computational Biology

Abstract

Embodied Choice considers action performance as a proper part of the decision making process rather than merely as a means to report the decision. The central statement of embodied choice is the existence of bidirectional influences between action and decisions. This implies that for a decision expressed by an action, the action dynamics and its constraints (e.g. current trajectory and kinematics) influence the decision making process. Here we use a perceptual decision making task to compare three types of model: a serial decision-then-action model, a parallel decision-and-action model, and an embodied choice model where the action feeds back into the decision making. The embodied model incorporates two key mechanisms that together are lacking in the other models: action preparation and commitment. First, action preparation strategies alleviate delays in enacting a choice but also modify decision termination. Second, action dynamics change the prospects and create a commitment effect to the initially preferred choice. Our results show that these two mechanisms make embodied choice models better suited to combine decision and action appropriately to achieve suitably fast and accurate responses, as usually required in ecologically valid situations. Moreover, embodied choice models with these mechanisms give a better account of trajectory tracking experiments during decision making. In conclusion, the embodied choice framework offers a combined theory of decision and action that gives a clear case that embodied phenomena such as the dynamics of actions can have a causal influence on central cognition.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004110

Cites

76 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Expected precision or confidence about preferred outcomes reports on the progress towards the goal, and precision can be updated during goal-directed action rather than just mediating learning by reporting reward prediction errors.

    “The expected precision or confidence about preferred outcomes reports on the progress towards the goal – like spatial proximity or sub-goals (Lepora and Pezzulo, 2015, Maisto et al., 2015) – and in accordance with early cybernetic models of purposive action such as the Test-Operate-Test-Exit (TOTE) model (Miller et al., 1960) precision can be updated (in a Bayes optimal fashion) during goal-direct”

    From Active Inference, homeostatic regulation and adaptive behavioural control (2015) · cites this paper as Lepora and Pezzulo, 2015

    The Results (Study 1, Model 4; page unavailable) describe a position-dependent feedback term: distance to each target influences the evolving decision during action. That supports the spatial-proximity example, but the paper does not characterize this feedback as expected precision about preferred outcomes, discuss sub-goals, or say that such precision is updated during action rather than reporting reward prediction errors. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lepora, N. F., & Pezzulo, G.
Affiliations
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • National Research Council (IT)
Corresponding author
Pezzulo, Giovanni
Venue
PLOS Computational Biology
Published
2015-04-07
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
e1004110
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2060215462
Cited by
209
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Nvidia
  • European Commission (270108)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
perceptual decision making, action preparation, commitment effect, trajectory tracking, response latency, response accuracy
MeSH terms
Animals, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Models, Neurological, Motivation, Perception, Task Performance and Analysis, Ecosystem, Mice

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