Humans and other animals are motivated to act so as to maximize their subjective reward rate. Here, we propose that reward rate maximization is accomplished by adjusting a context-dependent “urgency signal,” which influences both the commitment to a developing action choice and the vigor with which the ensuing action is performed. We review behavioral and neurophysiological data suggesting that urgency is controlled by projections from the basal ganglia to cerebral cortical regions, influencing neural activity related to decision making as well as activity related to action execution. We also review evidence suggesting that different individuals possess specific policies for adjusting their urgency signal to particular contextual variables, such that urgency constitutes an individual trait which jointly influences a wide range of behavioral measures commonly related to the overall quality and hastiness of one’s decisions and actions. Consequently, we argue that a central mechanism for reward rate maximization provides a potential link between personality traits such as impulsivity, as well as some of the motivation-related symptomology of clinical disorders such as depression and Parkinson’s disease.

Perceptual decision making is often modeled as perfect integration of sequential sensory samples until the accumulated total reaches a fixed decision bound. In that view, the buildup of neural activity during perceptual decision making is attributed to temporal integration. However, an alternative explanation is that sensory estimates are computed quickly with a low-pass filter and combined with a growing signal reflecting the urgency to respond and it is the latter that is primarily responsible for neural activity buildup. These models are difficult to distinguish empirically because they make similar predictions for tasks in which sensory information is constant within a trial, as in most previous studies. Here we presented subjects with a variant of the classic constant-coherence motion discrimination (CMD) task in which we inserted brief motion pulses. We examined the effect of these pulses on reaction times (RTs) in two conditions: 1) when the CMD trials were blocked and subjects responded quickly and 2) when the same CMD trials were interleaved among trials of a variable-motion coherence task that motivated slower decisions. In the blocked condition, early pulses had a strong effect on RTs but late pulses did not, consistent with both models. However, when subjects slowed their decision policy in the interleaved condition, later pulses now became effective while early pulses lost their efficacy. This last result contradicts models based on perfect integration of sensory evidence and implies that motion signals are processed with a strong leak, equivalent to a low-pass filter with a short time constant.

In a recent report, Winkel, Keuken, van Maanen, Wagenmakers & Forstmann (Psychonomics Bulletin and Review 21(3): 777-784, 2014) show that during a random-dot motion discrimination task, early differences in motion evidence can influence reaction times (RTs) and error rates in human subjects. They use this as an argument in favor of the drift-diffusion model and against the urgency-gating model. However, their implementation of the urgency-gating model is incomplete, as it lacks the low-pass filter that is necessary to deal with noisy input such as the motion signal used in their experimental task. Furthermore, by focusing analyses solely on comparison of mean RTs they overestimate how long early information influences individual trials. Here, we show that if the urgency-gating model is correctly implemented, including a low-pass filter with a 250 ms time constant, it can successfully reproduce the results of the Winkel et al. experiment.