The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motor Effort Alters Changes of Mind in Sensorimotor Decision Making
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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 the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
(2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,333
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Ratcliff, R. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.2.59 · Cited by 4,513
The Neural Basis of Decision Making
Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038 · Cited by 3,764
Self-citationOptimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination
Todorov, E., & Jordan, M. I. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn963 · Cited by 3,081
Roitman, J. D., & Shadlen, M. N. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-21-09475.2002 · Cited by 1,589 · cited 3×
“In monkeys, the decision variable is represented in structures that are associated with planning the motor response [14,23] and the motor system of both human and nonhuman primates are affected by partial informa tion leading to a decision [15,19,24–27].”
BackgroundMethodModeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00067 · Cited by 1,478
Information theory of choice-reaction times
Laming, D. (1968) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 945
Decision Making as a Window on Cognition
Shadlen, M. N., & Kiani, R. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.047 · Cited by 694
Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks
Song, J., & Nakayama, K. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009 · Cited by 691
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–116 of 116
Zuk, A. A. O., Bertrand, J. K., & Chapman, C. S. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.06.543796
Awareness-based Choice Selection: Improving Decision-making Efficiency by Using Known InformationPreprint
Farhadi, A. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3824813/v1
Structured Action Preparation during Visuomotor Decision-makingPreprint
Trach, J. E., & McDougle, S. D. (2024) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/pkez6
Tanis, D., & Kurtzer, I. L. (2024) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00379.2023
Decision-making integrates motor costs during ongoing action
Hagura, N. (2024) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00413.2024
Leroy, É., Koun, É., & Thura, D. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.11.14.623637
Testing the link between decision and action dynamicsPreprint
Schoemann, M., Grenke, O., & Scherbaum, S. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/4geys_v1
Movement effort does not alter the planning horizon of sequential reaching movements
Bellmann, A., Wijdenes, L. O., & Medendorp, W. P. (2026) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00457.2025
Disentangling decision uncertainty and motor noise in curved movement trajectories
Chapman, W. G., & Ludwig, C. J. H. (2025) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/jov.25.13.6
Decision revisions modulated by synaptic inhibition in the olfactory bulb facilitate learningPreprint
Pandey, S., Nayak, A. K., Bhattacharjee, A. S., Pandey, K., Das, S., & Abraham, N. M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.23.696244
Cui, N., van Beers, R. J., Smeets, J. B. J., & van Wijk, B. C. M. (2026) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2026.01.003 · Cited by 1
Gharesi, N., Kalaska, J. F., & Baillet, S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.23.701339
Stockart, F. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/c4f62883zfadez4797z9c4ezc049226f96a4
Yamada, K., Isoshima, K., & Kurita, Y. (2026) · Augmented Humans International Conference (AHs) · doi:10.1145/3795011.3797357
Metacognition and post-decisional processing in clinical decision-making
Katyal, S., & Fleming, S. M. (2026) · La Presse Médicale · doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2026.104369
A perspective on effort and its potential role in motor learning
Marbaker, R. M., Thom, C. J., & Ahmed, A. A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-45068-6.00024-x
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-03-20
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e92681
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3961398
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › 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
