Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41611534›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2026

A Movement-Independent Signature of Urgency during Human Perceptual Decision-Making.

Harvey McCone, Ciara A Devine, Emmet McNickle, Jessica Dully, Anna C Geuzebroek, David P McGovern, Simon P Kelly, Redmond G O'Connell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Harvey McConeTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin D02PN40, Ireland.
Ciara A DevineTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin D02PN40, Ireland.
Emmet McNickleTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin D02PN40, Ireland.
Jessica DullyTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin D02PN40, Ireland.
Anna C GeuzebroekSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and UCD Centre for Biomedical Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin D04 V1W8, Ireland.
David P McGovernSchool of Psychology, Dublin City University, Dublin D09 Y074, Ireland.
Simon P KellySchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and UCD Centre for Biomedical Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin D04 V1W8, Ireland.
Redmond G O'ConnellTrinity College Institute of Neuroscience and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin D02PN40, Ireland reoconne@tcd.ie.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

BrainDecision MakingAdultElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleMovementPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeYoung Adultdecision-makingEEGneurally informed modelingsequential sampling modelstimingurgency

Identifiers

PMID41611534
PMCPMC12981284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.