ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2014
Decoupling speed and accuracy in an urgent decision-making task reveals multiple contributions to their trade-off.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multisensory integration of stimulus-driven and goal-driven signals during urgent saccadic choices.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Neural and behavioral signatures of error monitoring are differentially modulated by social hierarchy and trial type.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Changes in expectation impact multiple steps of the visual perceptual decision process in adults.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Contributions of Distinct Attention Mechanisms to Saccadic Choices in a Gamified, Dynamic Environment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Contributions of distinct attention mechanisms to saccadic choices in a gamified, dynamic environment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The forced-response method: Urgency rediscovered.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Article
- A Dynamic Dual Process Model for Binary Choices: Serial Versus Parallel Architecture.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- CoCoA: conditional correlation models with association size.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Stimulus salience conflicts and colludes with endogenous goals during urgent choices.iScience · 2023Article
- Neural precursor cells tune striatal connectivity through the release of IGFBPL1.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Effector-dependent stochastic reference frame transformations alter decision-making.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- DIANA, a Process-Oriented Model of Human Auditory Word Recognition.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Post-error Slowing Reflects the Joint Impact of Adaptive and Maladaptive Processes During Decision Making.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Proactive and reactive accumulation-to-bound processes compete during perceptual decisions.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Modulation of vestibular-evoked responses prior to simple and complex arm movements.Experimental brain research · 2020Article
- Article
- Corticospinal excitability is enhanced while preparing for complex movements.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets.eLife · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A key goal in the study of decision making is determining how neural networks involved in perception and motor planning interact to generate a given choice, but this is complicated due to the internal trade-off between speed and accuracy, which confounds their individual contributions. Urgent decisions, however, are special: they may range between random and fully informed, depending on the amount of processing time (or stimulus viewing time) available in each trial, but regardless, movement preparation always starts early on. As a consequence, under time pressure it is possible to produce a psychophysical curve that characterizes perceptual performance independently of reaction time, and this, in turn, makes it possible to pinpoint how perceptual information (which requires sensory input) modulates motor planning (which does not) to guide a choice. Here we review experiments in which, on the basis of this approach, the origin of the speed-accuracy trade-off becomes particularly transparent. Psychophysical, neurophysiological, and modeling results in the "compelled-saccade" task indicate that, during urgent decision making, perceptual information-if and whenever it becomes available-accelerates or decelerates competing motor plans that are already ongoing. This interaction affects both the reaction time and the probability of success in any given trial. In two experiments with reward asymmetries, we find that speed and accuracy can be traded in different amounts and for different reasons, depending on how the particular task contingencies affect specific neural mechanisms related to perception and motor planning. Therefore, from the vantage point of urgent decisions, the speed-accuracy trade-off is not a unique phenomenon tied to a single underlying mechanism, but rather a typical outcome of many possible combinations of internal adjustments within sensory-motor neural circuits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.