用 "否决 "范式研究解释利贝特式实验的决策模型

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Yu Hei Shum , Carl Michael Galang , Marcel Brass
{"title":"用 \"否决 \"范式研究解释利贝特式实验的决策模型","authors":"Yu Hei Shum ,&nbsp;Carl Michael Galang ,&nbsp;Marcel Brass","doi":"10.1016/j.concog.2024.103732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The question of whether free will exists or not has intrigued philosophers for centuries. About 40 years ago, cognitive neuroscientists such as Benjamin Libet have joined the discussion by demonstrating that an ERP component, the readiness potential (RP), precedes the reported time of decision to act by a few hundred milliseconds. <span><span>Libet et al. (1983)</span></span> argued that our brains unconsciously prepare the movement before we experience any conscious intention, which led some free will skeptics (e.g., <span><span>Ebert &amp; Wegner, 2011</span></span>) to argue that free will does not exist. While Libet’s interpretation of his findings initiated an intense philosophical debate, alternative interpretations have been put forward more recently (<span><span>Bode et al., 2014</span></span>, <span><span>Brass et al., 2019</span></span>, <span><span>Schurger et al., 2012</span></span>, <span><span>Schurger et al., 2021</span></span>). Integration to bound models (ITB) of Libet-style experiments suggest that we accumulate information until an intention threshold is reached, which triggers our experience of intention and execution of voluntary behaviors. The RP, from this perspective reflects the decision process itself rather than the consequence of an unconscious decision. To determine if the ITB model better predicts behavioral patterns in Libet-style experiments, we added a whether-component to the classical Libet task (the Veto Libet task) and compared the behavioral measures in the Veto Libet task with the Classical Libet task. We hypothesized that the signal accumulation in the Veto Libet task would be less steep than in the Classical Libet task, resulting in longer wait times and earlier self-reported intentions to act (i.e., the W). The result in general supported our hypotheses. In addition, these behavioral differences between the Classical Libet task and the Veto Libet task established valuable behavioral correlates for future investigations into the vetoing phenomenon. Finally, this study was also the first application of the Libet task in an online setting, and the behavioral parameters were highly comparable to the previous offline studies, further supporting the possibility of using the online platform to study arbitrary decision-making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810024000990/pdfft?md5=0ad810735a2b896e0ec48d7d7debfa2f&pid=1-s2.0-S1053810024000990-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using a Veto paradigm to investigate the decision models in explaining Libet-style experiments\",\"authors\":\"Yu Hei Shum ,&nbsp;Carl Michael Galang ,&nbsp;Marcel Brass\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.concog.2024.103732\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The question of whether free will exists or not has intrigued philosophers for centuries. About 40 years ago, cognitive neuroscientists such as Benjamin Libet have joined the discussion by demonstrating that an ERP component, the readiness potential (RP), precedes the reported time of decision to act by a few hundred milliseconds. <span><span>Libet et al. (1983)</span></span> argued that our brains unconsciously prepare the movement before we experience any conscious intention, which led some free will skeptics (e.g., <span><span>Ebert &amp; Wegner, 2011</span></span>) to argue that free will does not exist. While Libet’s interpretation of his findings initiated an intense philosophical debate, alternative interpretations have been put forward more recently (<span><span>Bode et al., 2014</span></span>, <span><span>Brass et al., 2019</span></span>, <span><span>Schurger et al., 2012</span></span>, <span><span>Schurger et al., 2021</span></span>). Integration to bound models (ITB) of Libet-style experiments suggest that we accumulate information until an intention threshold is reached, which triggers our experience of intention and execution of voluntary behaviors. The RP, from this perspective reflects the decision process itself rather than the consequence of an unconscious decision. To determine if the ITB model better predicts behavioral patterns in Libet-style experiments, we added a whether-component to the classical Libet task (the Veto Libet task) and compared the behavioral measures in the Veto Libet task with the Classical Libet task. We hypothesized that the signal accumulation in the Veto Libet task would be less steep than in the Classical Libet task, resulting in longer wait times and earlier self-reported intentions to act (i.e., the W). The result in general supported our hypotheses. In addition, these behavioral differences between the Classical Libet task and the Veto Libet task established valuable behavioral correlates for future investigations into the vetoing phenomenon. Finally, this study was also the first application of the Libet task in an online setting, and the behavioral parameters were highly comparable to the previous offline studies, further supporting the possibility of using the online platform to study arbitrary decision-making.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810024000990/pdfft?md5=0ad810735a2b896e0ec48d7d7debfa2f&pid=1-s2.0-S1053810024000990-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810024000990\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810024000990","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几个世纪以来,自由意志是否存在的问题一直困扰着哲学家。大约 40 年前,本杰明-利贝特(Benjamin Libet)等认知神经科学家加入了这一讨论,他们证明了ERP 的一个组成部分--准备势能(RP)--比报告的行动决策时间早几百毫秒。利贝特等人(1983 年)认为,在我们体验到任何有意识的意图之前,我们的大脑会无意识地为动作做准备,这导致一些自由意志怀疑论者(如 Ebert & Wegner, 2011)认为自由意志并不存在。虽然利贝特对其研究结果的解释引发了一场激烈的哲学争论,但最近也有人提出了其他解释(博德等人,2014 年;布拉斯等人,2019 年;舒格等人,2012 年;舒格等人,2021 年)。利贝特式实验的整合到约束模型(ITB)认为,我们会不断积累信息,直到达到意向阈值,从而触发我们的意向体验并执行自愿行为。从这个角度来看,RP 反映的是决策过程本身,而不是无意识决策的结果。为了确定 ITB 模型是否能更好地预测利贝特式实验中的行为模式,我们在经典利贝特任务(否决利贝特任务)中添加了 "是否 "成分,并比较了否决利贝特任务和经典利贝特任务中的行为测量结果。我们假设,在否决利贝特任务中,信号积累的陡度会小于经典利贝特任务,从而导致等待时间更长,自我报告的行动意向(即 W)更早。结果总体上支持了我们的假设。此外,经典利贝特任务和否决利贝特任务之间的这些行为差异为今后研究否决现象建立了有价值的行为关联。最后,本研究也是首次将利贝特任务应用于在线环境,其行为参数与之前的离线研究具有很高的可比性,进一步支持了利用在线平台研究任意决策的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using a Veto paradigm to investigate the decision models in explaining Libet-style experiments

The question of whether free will exists or not has intrigued philosophers for centuries. About 40 years ago, cognitive neuroscientists such as Benjamin Libet have joined the discussion by demonstrating that an ERP component, the readiness potential (RP), precedes the reported time of decision to act by a few hundred milliseconds. Libet et al. (1983) argued that our brains unconsciously prepare the movement before we experience any conscious intention, which led some free will skeptics (e.g., Ebert & Wegner, 2011) to argue that free will does not exist. While Libet’s interpretation of his findings initiated an intense philosophical debate, alternative interpretations have been put forward more recently (Bode et al., 2014, Brass et al., 2019, Schurger et al., 2012, Schurger et al., 2021). Integration to bound models (ITB) of Libet-style experiments suggest that we accumulate information until an intention threshold is reached, which triggers our experience of intention and execution of voluntary behaviors. The RP, from this perspective reflects the decision process itself rather than the consequence of an unconscious decision. To determine if the ITB model better predicts behavioral patterns in Libet-style experiments, we added a whether-component to the classical Libet task (the Veto Libet task) and compared the behavioral measures in the Veto Libet task with the Classical Libet task. We hypothesized that the signal accumulation in the Veto Libet task would be less steep than in the Classical Libet task, resulting in longer wait times and earlier self-reported intentions to act (i.e., the W). The result in general supported our hypotheses. In addition, these behavioral differences between the Classical Libet task and the Veto Libet task established valuable behavioral correlates for future investigations into the vetoing phenomenon. Finally, this study was also the first application of the Libet task in an online setting, and the behavioral parameters were highly comparable to the previous offline studies, further supporting the possibility of using the online platform to study arbitrary decision-making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信