↓ Skip to main content

I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
I Plan Therefore I Choose: Free-Choice Bias Due to Prior Action-Probability but Not Action-Value
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lalitta Suriya-Arunroj, Alexander Gail

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 29%
Neuroscience 15 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Engineering 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,700,486
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,013
of 3,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,046
of 386,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#57
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.