» Articles » PMID: 34281978

Action Costs Rapidly and Automatically Interfere with Reward-Based Decision-Making in a Reaching Task

Overview
Journal eNeuro
Specialty Neurology
Date 2021 Jul 20
PMID 34281978
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

It is widely assumed that we select actions we value the most. While the influence of rewards on decision-making has been extensively studied, evidence regarding the influence of motor costs is scarce. Specifically, how and when motor costs are integrated in the decision process is unclear. Twenty-two right-handed human participants performed a reward-based target selection task by reaching with their right arm toward one of two visual targets. Targets were positioned in different directions according to biomechanical preference, such that one target was systematically associated with a lower motor cost than the other. Only one of the two targets was rewarded, either in a congruent or incongruent manner with respect to the associated motor cost. A timed-response paradigm was used to manipulate participants' reaction times (RT). Results showed that when the rewarded target carried the highest motor cost, movements produced at short RT (<350 ms) were deviated toward the other (i.e., non-rewarded, low-cost (LC) target). In this context participants needed an additional 150-ms delay to reach the same percentage of rewarded trials as when the LC target was rewarded. Crucially, motor costs affected the total earnings of participants. These results demonstrate a robust interference of motor costs in a simple reward-based decision-making task. They point to the rapid and automatic integration of motor costs at an early stage of processing, potentially through the direct modulation of competing action representations in parieto-frontal regions. The progressive overcoming of this bias with increasing RT is likely achieved through top-down signaling pertaining to expected rewards.

Citing Articles

Cross-Modal Transfer Effects of the Go/No-Go Training With Visual Stimuli.

Hori M, Kojima S, Onishi H Brain Behav. 2025; 15(2):e70309.

PMID: 39924966 PMC: 11808185. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.70309.


Biomechanical costs influence decisions made during ongoing actions.

Canaveral C, Lata W, Green A, Cisek P J Neurophysiol. 2024; 132(2):461-469.

PMID: 38988286 PMC: 11427048. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00090.2024.


Dual-tasking modulates movement speed but not value-based choices during walking.

Griessbach E, Rassbach P, Herbort O, Canal-Bruland R Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):6342.

PMID: 38491146 PMC: 10943095. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-56937-y.


Adversarial inference: predictive minds in the attention economy.

Bruineberg J Neurosci Conscious. 2023; 2023(1):niad019.

PMID: 37635900 PMC: 10457025. DOI: 10.1093/nc/niad019.


Embodied decision biases: individually stable across different tasks?.

Griessbach E, Rassbach P, Herbort O, Canal-Bruland R Exp Brain Res. 2023; 241(4):1053-1064.

PMID: 36907885 PMC: 10082122. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06591-z.


References
1.
Klink P, Jentgens P, Lorteije J . Priority maps explain the roles of value, attention, and salience in goal-oriented behavior. J Neurosci. 2014; 34(42):13867-9. PMC: 6705291. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3249-14.2014. View

2.
Todorov E, Jordan M . Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci. 2002; 5(11):1226-35. DOI: 10.1038/nn963. View

3.
Gallivan J, Stewart B, Baugh L, Wolpert D, Flanagan J . Rapid Automatic Motor Encoding of Competing Reach Options. Cell Rep. 2017; 18(7):1619-1626. PMC: 6103432. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.01.049. View

4.
Michalski J, Green A, Cisek P . Reaching decisions during ongoing movements. J Neurophysiol. 2020; 123(3):1090-1102. PMC: 7099481. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00613.2019. View

5.
Andersen R, Cui H . Intention, action planning, and decision making in parietal-frontal circuits. Neuron. 2009; 63(5):568-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.08.028. View