Cited by 117Motor Control and AdaptationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and Agency

Motor effort alters changes of mind in sensorimotor decision making

Open access
Burk, Diana, Ingram, James N., Franklin, David W., Shadlen, Michael N., Wolpert, Daniel M.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

After committing to an action, a decision-maker can change their mind to revise the action. Such changes of mind can even occur when the stream of information that led to the action is curtailed at movement onset. This is explained by the time delays in sensory processing and motor planning which lead to a component at the end of the sensory stream that can only be processed after initiation. Such post-initiation processing can explain the pattern of changes of mind by asserting an accumulation of additional evidence to a criterion level, termed change-of-mind bound. Here we test the hypothesis that physical effort associated with the movement required to change one's mind affects the level of the change-of-mind bound and the time for post-initiation deliberation. We varied the effort required to change from one choice target to another in a reaching movement by varying the geometry of the choice targets or by applying a force field between the targets. We show that there is a reduction in the frequency of change of mind when the separation of the choice targets would require a larger excursion of the hand from the initial to the opposite choice. The reduction is best explained by an increase in the evidence required for changes of mind and a reduced time period of integration after the initial decision. Thus the criteria to revise an initial choice is sensitive to energetic costs.

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.pone.0092681

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • For three of the four subjects, changes of decision corrected an initial error more often than they spoiled an initially correct choice.

    “For three of the four subjects, changes of decision corrected an initial error more often than they spoiled an initially correct choice (P<0.001, P<0.001, P = 0.084, P<0.001), consistent with previous reports (Resulaj et al., 2009; Burk et al., 2014).”

    From A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence (2016) · cites this paper as Burk et al., 2014

  • In previous studies, the motor system receives a continuous updating of the state of the evidence leading to a choice and can utilize late arriving information to revise an initial choice by continuing the process of deliberation.

    “In previous studies, we showed that the motor system receives a continuous updating of the state of the evidence leading to a choice (Gold and Shadlen, 2000; Selen et al., 2012) and can utilize the late arriving information to revise an initial choice by continuing the process of deliberation (Resulaj et al., 2009; Burk et al., 2014).”

    From A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence (2016) · cites this paper as Burk et al., 2014

  • The fixed non-decision time standard deviation of 60 ms is within the normal range from a previous study and is supported by an analysis of motion energy.

    “To further reduce the degrees of freedom of the model to four we fixed both the covariance ρ to -0.5 ≈ -0.71 and non-decision time standard deviation σtnd to 60 ms (within the normal range from a previous study (Burk et al., 2014) and supported by an analysis of motion energy; see Figure 1—figure supplement 1).”

    From A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence (2016) · cites this paper as Burk et al., 2014

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
Burk, D., Ingram, J. N., Franklin, D. W., Shadlen, M. N., & Wolpert, D. M.
Affiliations
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Wolpert, Daniel M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-03-20
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
e92681
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981476255
Cited by
117
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (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)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Wellcome Trust (097803, 097803/Z/11/Z)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY011378)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
change of mind, sensorimotor decision making, motor effort, evidence accumulation, reaching movements, force fields, target geometry, energetic cost, decision revision
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Psychomotor Performance, Young Adult

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