Explicit effort may not influence perceptuomotor decision-making.

Many decisions that humans make are enacted by the action system. For example, humans use reach-to-grasp movements when making perceptuomotor decisions between and obtaining fruits of varying quality from a pile. Recent work suggests that the characteristics of each action alternative may influence the decision itself-there may be a bias away from making perceptuomotor alternatives associated with high effort when participants are unaware of the effort differences between responses. The present study examined if perceptuomotor decisions were influenced by explicit reaching effort differences. Neurotypical human participants were presented with random dot motion stimuli in which most dots moved in random directions and varying percentages of remaining dots moved coherently left- or rightward. Participants reported leftward motion judgements by performing leftward (or left hand) reaching movements and rightward motion judgements by performing rightward (or right hand) reaching movements. A resistance band was affixed to participants' wrists and to the table in different configurations. The configurations allowed for one movement/motion direction judgement to always require stretching of the band and, therefore, require relatively more effort. Across a set of experiments, the response context (i.e. selecting directions within a limb or selecting between limbs) and the effort difference between responses were manipulated. Overall, no experiment revealed a bias away from the perceptuomotor decision associated with high effort. Based on these results, it is concluded that, in this biomechanical context, explicit effort may not influence perceptuomotor decision-making and may point to a contextual influence of action effort on perceptuomotor decision-making.

Modulation of response activation leads to biases in perceptuomotor decision making.

Humans are constantly enacting motor responses based on perceptual judgments or decisions. Recent work suggests that accumulating evidence for a decision and planning the action to enact the decision are coupled. Further, decision commitment may occur when the action reaches its motor threshold. Across several experiments, this coupled perception-action account of perceptuomotor decision making was tested by determining if increasing response activation corresponding to one decision influenced the evidence needed to make that decision. Participants were presented with stimuli that contained varying ratios of yellow-to-blue squares and made a speeded left/right-hand response to report whether the stimulus had more yellow or blue squares, respectively. Response activation was modulated by presenting stimuli laterally on the screen-spatially compatible or incompatible with the color reports. When stimuli appeared leftward (spatially compatible with a left response/"yellow" report), the threshold for a "yellow" perceptuomotor decision was reduced-consistent with the hypothesis that increasing "yellow" response activation would lead to a "yellow" reporting bias. Further, when stimuli appeared rightward (spatially compatible with a right response/"blue" report), the threshold for a "blue" perceptuomotor decision was reduced. An additional experiment revealed that directional saccades occurring during the task were unlikely to account for biases. Overall, spatially induced response activation influenced the decision outcomes, providing support for a tightly coupled perception-action system underlying perceptuomotor decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Choices in a key press decision-making task are more optimal after gaining both aiming and reward experience.

When presented with two different target-penalty configurations of similar maximum expected gain (MEG), participants prefer aiming to configurations with more advantageous spatial, rather than more advantageous gain parameters-perhaps due to the motor system's inherent prioritisation of spatial information during movements with high accuracy demands such as aiming. To test this hypothesis, participants in the present studies chose between target-penalty configurations via key presses to reduce the importance of spatial parameters of the response and performance-related feedback. Configurations varied in spatial (target-penalty region overlap) and gain parameters (negative penalty values) and could have similar or different MEG. Choices were made without prior aiming experience (Experiment 1), after aiming experience provided information of movement variability (Experiment 2), or after aiming experience provided information of movement variability and outcome feedback (Experiment 3). Overall, configurations with advantageous spatial or gain parameters were chosen equally (Both-Similar condition) in all experiments. However, average behaviour at the group level was not reflective of the behaviour of most individual participants with three subgroups emerging: those with a value preference, distance preference, or no preference. In Experiments 1 and 2, these individual differences cannot be explained by MEG differences between configurations or participants' movement variability, but these variables predicted choice behaviour in Experiment 3. Further in the Both-Different condition, participants only selected the larger MEG configuration at a level above chance when both variability and outcome information were given prior to the key press task (Experiment 3). In sum, the data indicate that prioritisation of spatial information did not emerge at the group level when performing key presses and more optimal behaviour emerged when information regarding movement variability and outcome feedback were given.