2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.065
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Representation of Effort in Decision-Making and Motor Control

Abstract: Given two rewarding stimuli, animals tend to choose the more rewarding (or less effortful) option. However, they also move faster toward that stimulus [1-5]. This suggests that reward and effort not only affect decision-making, they also influence motor control [6, 7]. How does the brain compute the effort requirements of a task? Here, we considered data acquired during walking, reaching, flying, or isometric force production. In analyzing the decision-making and motor-control behaviors of various animals, we … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

16
212
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 227 publications
(246 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(63 reference statements)
16
212
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, minimizing other torque-related cost functions failed to predict direction-dependent kinematics (Figure 1F). The present results therefore strongly support effort minimization in humans, further extending the growing idea that perceived effort plays an important role in the tailoring of human motor as well as non-motor behaviors (Bramble and Lieberman, 2004; Walton et al, 2006; Mazzoni et al, 2007; Carrier et al, 2011; Kurzban et al, 2013; Selinger et al, 2015; Farshchiansadegh et al, 2016; Shadmehr et al, 2016). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Furthermore, minimizing other torque-related cost functions failed to predict direction-dependent kinematics (Figure 1F). The present results therefore strongly support effort minimization in humans, further extending the growing idea that perceived effort plays an important role in the tailoring of human motor as well as non-motor behaviors (Bramble and Lieberman, 2004; Walton et al, 2006; Mazzoni et al, 2007; Carrier et al, 2011; Kurzban et al, 2013; Selinger et al, 2015; Farshchiansadegh et al, 2016; Shadmehr et al, 2016). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…7c, top row). The inconsistency of the planning preferences, both within and across subjects, suggests that they arose as part of conscious task strategies rather than from an ingrained predilection for minimizing exertion or some other physiological cost function 3537 .
Fig. 7Preferential reach planning in PMd during two-target trials.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To explain such a counterintuitive effect, the authors assume that effort costs are subject to the same temporal discounting as can typically be observed for reward in economic choice behavior [22]. This hypothetical explanation is, however, not applicable to our results, as we kept the total duration of trials constant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When considering whole movements and not single muscles, the energy rate is linearly related to the squared speed for walking [29]. Reaching shows similar relationships in which, at constant durations, the energy expended for movements depends almost linearly (exponent = 1.1) on distance [22]. The use of energetic cost as a decision factor is thus neither consistent with the lacking amplitude dependency in our experiment 1 nor with the quadratic force–effort relationship observed in experiment 2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%