Biology subjects

Fievez, F.

Publications and source records attributed to Fievez, F..

5 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2026

Motor implementation of control and reward-based urgency regulation across impulsivity

Everyday decisions unfold dynamically, with commitment shaped by a growing sense of urgency that can, when excessive, contribute to impulsive choices. Here we aimed at dissociating two modes of urgency regulation, control-driven (accuracy-oriented) and reward-driven (motivation-based), and asked whether their relative influence varies across individuals differing in impulsivity. We further investigated how these regulatory modes are implemented in the motor system, focusing on two modulatory effects: surround inhibition and broad modulation. Healthy participants, whose impulsivity was assessed with the UPPS urgency dimension, performed a modified Tokens task crossing control demands (low vs high control blocks) with motivational context (low vs high reward trials). In two separate sessions, single-pulse TMS was applied either over the hand motor representation to probe corticospinal excitability indexing surround inhibition, or over the leg representation to index broad modulations of motor activity. This design successfully dissociated the two regulatory modes: control-driven adjustments (across blocks) were most evident in less impulsive participants, whereas reward-driven adjustments (across trials) were most evident in more impulsive participants. Consistent with this dissociation, control-driven urgency regulation was associated with broad modulation of motor activity, whereas reward-driven urgency adjustments were associated with changes in surround inhibition. These motor signatures may serve as probes of the respective contributions of control- and reward-driven regulation even when they are not explicitly dissociated. Our findings suggest that impulsivity may not simply reflect "more urgency" but a different weighting of the influences that shape it during decision making, a hypothesis that can now be tested in clinical conditions.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2023

Task goals shape the relationship between decision and movement speed

The speed at which we move is linked to the speed at which we decide to make these movements. Yet, the principles guiding such relationship remain unclear: while some studies point towards a shared invigoration process boosting decision and movement speed jointly, others rather indicate a tradeoff between both levels of control, with slower movements accompanying faster decisions. Here, we aimed (1) at further investigating the existence of a shared invigoration process linking decision and movement and (2) at testing the hypothesis that such a link is masked when detrimental to the reward rate. To this aim, we tested 62 subjects who performed the tokens task in two experiments (separate sessions): Experiment 1 evaluated how changing decision speed affects movement speed while Experiment 2 assessed how changing movement speed affects decision speed. In the latter experiment, subjects were either encouraged to favor decision speed (fast decision group) or decision accuracy (slow decision group). Various mixed model analyses revealed a coregulation of decision (urgency) and movement speed in Experiment 1 and in the fast decision group of Experiment 2, but not in the slow decision group despite the fact that these same subjects displayed a coregulation effect in Experiment 1. Altogether, our findings support the idea that coregulation occurs as a default mode but that this form of control is diminished or supplanted by a tradeoff relationship, contingent on reward rate maximization. Drawing from these behavioral observations, we propose that multiple processes contribute to shaping the speed of decisions and movements. New & NoteWorhtyThe principles guiding the relationship between decision and movement speed are unclear. In the present behavioral study involving two experiments conducted on 62 human subjects, we report findings indicating a relationship that varies as a function of the task goals. Coregulation emerges as a default mode of control that fades when detrimental to the reward rate, possibly due to the influence of other processes that can selectively shape the speed of our decisions and movements.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2022

Movement characteristics impact decision-making and vice versa

Previous studies suggest that humans are capable of coregulating the speed of decisions and movements if promoted by task incentives. It is unclear however whether such behavior is inherent to the process of translating decisional information into movements, beyond posing a valid strategy in some task contexts. Therefore, in a behavioral online study we imposed time constraints to either decision or movement -phases of a sensorimotor task, ensuring that coregulating decisions and movements was not promoted by task incentives. We found that participants indeed moved faster when fast decisions were promoted and decided faster when subsequent movements had to be executed swiftly. Furthermore, inflicting faster movements seems to alter decision-making in a similar fashion as conditions promoting faster decisions: In both fast-decision and fast-movement blocks, decisions relied more strongly on information presented shortly rather than long before movement onset. Taken together, these findings suggest that decisions not only impact movement characteristics, but that properties of movement impact the time and manner with which decisions are made. We interpret these behavioral results in the context of embodied decision-making, whereby shared neural mechanisms may not only enable faster movements but also assist in making decisions in less time.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2021

Post-error slowing reflects the joint impact of adaptive and maladaptive processes during decision making

Errors and their consequences are typically studied by investigating changes in decision speed and accuracy in trials that follow an error, commonly referred to as "post-error adjustments". Many studies have reported that subjects slow down following an error, a phenomenon called "post-error slowing" (PES). However, the functional significance of PES is still a matter of debate as it is not always adaptive. That is, it is not always associated with a gain in performance and can even occur with a decline in accuracy. Here, we hypothesized that the nature of PES is influenced by ones speed-accuracy tradeoff policy, which determines the overall level of choice accuracy in the task at hand. To test this hypothesis, we investigated post-error adjustments in subjects performing the same task while they were required to either emphasize speed (low accuracy) or cautiousness (high accuracy) in two distinct contexts (hasty and cautious contexts, respectively) experienced on separate days. Accordingly, our data indicate that post-error adjustments varied according to the context in which subjects performed the task, with PES being solely significant in the hasty context. In addition, we only observed a gain in performance after errors in a specific trial type, suggesting that post-error adjustments depend on a complex combination of processes that affect the speed of ensuing actions as well as the degree to which such PES comes with a gain in performance.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2018

Challenging the function of motor inhibition: Does it really assist action selection?

By applying transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) to elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in muscles of the contralateral hand during reaction time (RT) tasks, many studies have reported a strong suppression of MEPs during action preparation, a phenomenon called preparatory inhibition. Several hypotheses have been put forward regarding the role of this inhibition, with the predominant view suggesting that it would help action selection. However, this assumption is still a matter of debate. Here, we aimed at directly addressing this idea by comparing MEPs in a task that required subjects to select a finger response within a set of predefined options (choice RT task: left or right index finger abduction) or when subjects simply had to provide the same finger response on every trial, in the absence of choice (simple RT task). Moreover, we minimized any effect that could be associated with other forms of inhibition. In both versions of the task, TMS was applied on both M1 (double-coil protocol) at several time points between the go signal and the left or right index finger response, eliciting MEPs bilaterally in the prime mover (index finger agonist) and in an irrelevant muscle (pinky agonist). Overall, MEP suppression was moderate in this study; it was only found for the irrelevant muscle. As such, MEPs in the index agonist were facilitated when elicited in a responding hand (e.g. left MEPs preceding left responses) and remained mostly unchanged in a non-responding hand (e.g. left MEPs preceding right responses). In contrast, MEPs were almost always suppressed in the pinky muscle when elicited in the non-responding hand and sometimes also in the responding hand. Importantly, this effect was more consistent in the choice than in the simple RT task, supporting the view that preparatory inhibition may assist action selection. Moreover, the fact that it sometimes concerned the responding hand is coherent with the idea of a global process, suppressing broadly the motor system.\n\nHighlightsO_LIAddressed the debated idea that preparatory inhibition assists action selection\nC_LIO_LICompared MEPs in simple and choice RT tasks (no catch, no delay)\nC_LIO_LIDetected preparatory suppression of MEPs, although weaker than usual\nC_LIO_LIObserved a more consistent suppression of MEPs in the choice than simple setting\nC_LIO_LIProvided support for action selection hypothesis, with traces of broad inhibition\nC_LI

neuroscience↗