ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Computational mechanism underlying switching of motor actions.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An integrative computational approach for obstacle avoidance during action selection.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Survival of species in an ever-changing environment requires a flexibility that extends beyond merely selecting the most appropriate actions. It also involves readiness to stop or switch actions in response to environmental changes. Although considerable research has been devoted to understanding how the brain switches actions, the computations underlying the switching process and how it relates to the selecting and stopping processes remain elusive. A normative theory suggests that switching is simply an extension of the stopping process, during which a current action is first inhibited by an independent pause mechanism before a new action is generated. This theory was challenged by the affordance competition hypothesis, according to which the switching process is implemented through a competition between the current and new actions, without engaging an independent pause mechanism. To delineate the computations underlying these action regulation functions, we utilized a neurocomputational theory that models the process of selecting, stopping and switching reaching movements. We tested the model predictions in healthy individuals who performed reaches in dynamic and uncertain environments that often required stopping and switching actions. Our findings suggest that unlike the stopping process, switching does not necessitate a proactive pause mechanism to delay movement initiation. Hence, the switching and stopping processes seem to be implemented by different mechanisms at the planning phase of the reaching movement. However, once the reaching movement has been initiated, the switching process seems to involve an independent pause mechanism if the new target location is unknown prior to movement initiation. These findings offer a new understanding of the computations underlying action switching, contribute valuable insights into the fundamental neuroscientific mechanisms of action regulation, and open new avenues for future neurophysiological investigations.
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.