Cargando…
I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value
According to an emerging view, decision-making, and motor planning are tightly entangled at the level of neural processing. Choice is influenced not only by the values associated with different options, but also biased by other factors. Here we test the hypothesis that preliminary action planning ca...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4658425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26635565 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00315 |
_version_ | 1782402512055173120 |
---|---|
author | Suriya-Arunroj, Lalitta Gail, Alexander |
author_facet | Suriya-Arunroj, Lalitta Gail, Alexander |
author_sort | Suriya-Arunroj, Lalitta |
collection | PubMed |
description | According to an emerging view, decision-making, and motor planning are tightly entangled at the level of neural processing. Choice is influenced not only by the values associated with different options, but also biased by other factors. Here we test the hypothesis that preliminary action planning can induce choice biases gradually and independently of objective value when planning overlaps with one of the potential action alternatives. Subjects performed center-out reaches obeying either a clockwise or counterclockwise cue-response rule in two tasks. In the probabilistic task, a pre-cue indicated the probability of each of the two potential rules to become valid. When the subsequent rule-cue unambiguously indicated which of the pre-cued rules was actually valid (instructed trials), subjects responded faster to rules pre-cued with higher probability. When subjects were allowed to choose freely between two equally rewarded rules (choice trials) they chose the originally more likely rule more often and faster, despite the lack of an objective advantage in selecting this target. In the amount task, the pre-cue indicated the amount of potential reward associated with each rule. Subjects responded faster to rules pre-cued with higher reward amount in instructed trials of the amount task, equivalent to the more likely rule in the probabilistic task. Yet, in contrast, subjects showed hardly any choice bias and no increase in response speed in favor of the original high-reward target in the choice trials of the amount task. We conclude that free-choice behavior is robustly biased when predictability encourages the planning of one of the potential responses, while prior reward expectations without action planning do not induce such strong bias. Our results provide behavioral evidence for distinct contributions of expected value and action planning in decision-making and a tight interdependence of motor planning and action selection, supporting the idea that the underlying neural mechanisms overlap. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4658425 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46584252015-12-03 I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value Suriya-Arunroj, Lalitta Gail, Alexander Front Behav Neurosci Neuroscience According to an emerging view, decision-making, and motor planning are tightly entangled at the level of neural processing. Choice is influenced not only by the values associated with different options, but also biased by other factors. Here we test the hypothesis that preliminary action planning can induce choice biases gradually and independently of objective value when planning overlaps with one of the potential action alternatives. Subjects performed center-out reaches obeying either a clockwise or counterclockwise cue-response rule in two tasks. In the probabilistic task, a pre-cue indicated the probability of each of the two potential rules to become valid. When the subsequent rule-cue unambiguously indicated which of the pre-cued rules was actually valid (instructed trials), subjects responded faster to rules pre-cued with higher probability. When subjects were allowed to choose freely between two equally rewarded rules (choice trials) they chose the originally more likely rule more often and faster, despite the lack of an objective advantage in selecting this target. In the amount task, the pre-cue indicated the amount of potential reward associated with each rule. Subjects responded faster to rules pre-cued with higher reward amount in instructed trials of the amount task, equivalent to the more likely rule in the probabilistic task. Yet, in contrast, subjects showed hardly any choice bias and no increase in response speed in favor of the original high-reward target in the choice trials of the amount task. We conclude that free-choice behavior is robustly biased when predictability encourages the planning of one of the potential responses, while prior reward expectations without action planning do not induce such strong bias. Our results provide behavioral evidence for distinct contributions of expected value and action planning in decision-making and a tight interdependence of motor planning and action selection, supporting the idea that the underlying neural mechanisms overlap. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4658425/ /pubmed/26635565 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00315 Text en Copyright © 2015 Suriya-Arunroj and Gail. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Suriya-Arunroj, Lalitta Gail, Alexander I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value |
title | I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value |
title_full | I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value |
title_fullStr | I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value |
title_full_unstemmed | I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value |
title_short | I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value |
title_sort | i plan therefore i choose: free-choice bias due to prior action-probability but not action-value |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4658425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26635565 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00315 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT suriyaarunrojlalitta iplanthereforeichoosefreechoicebiasduetoprioractionprobabilitybutnotactionvalue AT gailalexander iplanthereforeichoosefreechoicebiasduetoprioractionprobabilitybutnotactionvalue |