ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2026
A Movement-Independent Signature of Urgency during Human Perceptual Decision-Making.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Readout and delayed transmission of initial afferent V1 activity in decisions about stimulus contrast.eLife · 2026Article
- Tracing the neural trajectories of evidence accumulation and motor preparation processes during voluntary decisions.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How does the brain adjust its decision processes to ensure timely decision completion? Computational modeling and electrophysiological investigations have pointed to dynamic "urgency" processes that serve to progressively reduce the quantity of evidence required to reach choice commitment as time elapses. In humans, such urgency dynamics have been observed exclusively in neural signals that accumulate evidence for a specific motor plan. Across three complementary experiments in humans (male and female), we characterize an electrophysiological signal that traces dynamic urgency and exhibits unique properties not observed in effector-selective signals. Firstly, it provides a representation of urgency alone, growing only as a function of time and not evidence strength. Secondly, when choice reports must be withheld until a response cue, this signal peaks and decays long before response execution, mirroring the early termination dynamics of a motor-independent evidence accumulation signal. These properties suggest that the brain may use urgency signals not only to expedite motor planning but also to hasten cognitive deliberation. These data demonstrate that urgency processes operate in a variety of perceptual choice scenarios and that they can be monitored in a model-independent manner via noninvasive brain signals.
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.