The cone method: Inferring decision times from single-trial 3D movement trajectories in choice behavior

Ongoing goal-directed movements can be rapidly adjusted following new environmental information, e.g. when chasing pray or foraging. This makes movement trajectories in go-before-you-know decision-making a suitable behavioral readout of the ongoing decision process. Yet, existing methods of movement analysis are often based on statistically comparing two groups of trial-averaged trajectories and are not easily applied to three-dimensional data, preventing them from being applicable to natural free behavior. We developed and tested the cone method to estimate the point of overt commitment (POC) along a single two- or three-dimensional trajectory, i.e. the position where movement is adjusted towards a newly selected spatial target. In Experiment 1, we established a “ground truth” data set in which the cone method successfully identified the experimentally constrained POCs across a wide range of all but the shallowest adjustment angles. In Experiment 2, we demonstrate the power of the method in a typical decision-making task with expected decision time differences known from previous findings. The POCs identified by cone method matched these expected effects. In both experiments, we compared the cone method’s single trial performance with a trial-averaging method and obtained comparable results. We discuss the advantages of the single-trajectory cone method over trial-averaging methods and possible applications beyond the examples presented in this study. The cone method provides a distinct addition to existing tools used to study decisions during ongoing movement behavior, which we consider particularly promising towards studies of non-repetitive free behavior.

[1]  Karen R Dobkins,et al.  The face inversion effect in infants is driven by high, and not low, spatial frequencies. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[2]  Jason P. Gallivan,et al.  Three-dimensional reach trajectories as a probe of real-time decision-making between multiple competing targets , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[3]  Helen J. Huang,et al.  A Representation of Effort in Decision-Making and Motor Control , 2016, Current Biology.

[4]  Frédéric Crevecoeur,et al.  Rapid Online Selection between Multiple Motor Plans , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  Hansjörg Scherberger,et al.  Uniting functional network topology and oscillations in the fronto-parietal single unit network of behaving primates , 2016, eLife.

[6]  Craig S. Chapman,et al.  Models, movements, and minds: bridging the gap between decision making and action , 2020, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[7]  E. Brenner,et al.  Fast Responses of the Human Hand to Changes in Target Position. , 1997, Journal of motor behavior.

[8]  C. González-Vallejo,et al.  Action Dynamics in Intertemporal Choice Reveal Different Facets of Decision Process , 2017 .

[9]  Paul Cisek,et al.  Neural Correlates of Biased Competition in Premotor Cortex , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  Luca Ambrogioni,et al.  Dynamic decomposition of spatiotemporal neural signals , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  Influence of the behavioral goal and environmental obstacles on rapid feedback responses. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Fred Wolf,et al.  Emergence and suppression of cooperation by action visibility in transparent games. , 2020, PLoS computational biology.

[14]  Pierre Morel,et al.  Gramm: grammar of graphics plotting in Matlab , 2018, J. Open Source Softw..

[15]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Track It to Crack It: Dissecting Processing Stages with Finger Tracking , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[17]  Craig S. Chapman,et al.  Decision-making in sensorimotor control , 2018, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[18]  P. Dayan,et al.  A mathematical model explains saturating axon guidance responses to molecular gradients , 2016, eLife.

[19]  J. Kalaska,et al.  Neural Correlates of Reaching Decisions in Dorsal Premotor Cortex: Specification of Multiple Direction Choices and Final Selection of Action , 2005, Neuron.

[20]  Thomas A. Farmer,et al.  Hand in Motion Reveals Mind in Motion , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[21]  G. Pezzulo,et al.  Navigating the Affordance Landscape: Feedback Control as a Process Model of Behavior and Cognition , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Craig S. Chapman,et al.  The snooze of lose: Rapid reaching reveals that losses are processed more slowly than gains. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[24]  Christian Klaes,et al.  Choosing Goals, Not Rules: Deciding among Rule-Based Action Plans , 2011, Neuron.

[25]  Maarten Kamermans,et al.  A novel mechanism of cone photoreceptor adaptation , 2017, PLoS biology.

[26]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Rapid Visuomotor Responses Reflect Value-Based Decisions , 2019, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  J. Randall Flanagan,et al.  Rapid target foraging with reach or gaze: The hand looks further ahead than the eye , 2017, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  Olga A Vsevolozhskaya,et al.  DOT: Gene-set analysis by combining decorrelated association statistics , 2020, PLoS computational biology.

[29]  Alexander Gail,et al.  Complementary encoding of priors in monkey frontoparietal network supports a dual process of decision-making , 2019, eLife.

[30]  Daniel Ansari,et al.  Counting on the motor system: rapid action planning reveals the format- and magnitude-dependent extraction of numerical quantity. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[31]  A. Gail,et al.  What makes a reach movement effortful? Physical effort discounting supports common minimization principles in decision making and motor control , 2017, PLoS biology.

[32]  Daniel S. Margulies,et al.  Prioritizing spatial accuracy in high-resolution fMRI data using multivariate feature weight mapping , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[33]  T. Goschke,et al.  How decisions evolve: The temporal dynamics of action selection , 2010, Cognition.

[34]  C. Buss,et al.  Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[35]  P. Cisek,et al.  Reaching decisions during ongoing movements. , 2020, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  Sebastian Möller,et al.  Human and macaque pairs employ different coordination strategies in a dyadic decision game with face-to-face action visibility , 2020 .