Seth R Sullivan, Rakshith Lokesh, Jan A Calalo, Truc Ngo, John H Buggeln, Adam M Roth, Christopher Peters, Isaac Kurtzer, Michael J Carter, Joshua G A Cashaback
{"title":"时间压力下的优柔寡断源于次优切换行为。","authors":"Seth R Sullivan, Rakshith Lokesh, Jan A Calalo, Truc Ngo, John H Buggeln, Adam M Roth, Christopher Peters, Isaac Kurtzer, Michael J Carter, Joshua G A Cashaback","doi":"10.1152/jn.00563.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Indecisive behaviour can be catastrophic, leading to car crashes or stock market losses. Despite fruitful efforts across several decades to understand decision-making, there has been little research on what leads to indecision. Here we examined how indecisions arise under high-pressure deadlines. In our first experiment participants attempted to select a target by either reacting to a stimulus or guessing, when acting under a high pressure time constraint. We found that participants were suboptimal, displaying a below chance win percentage due to an excessive number of indecisions. Computational modelling suggested that participants were excessively indecisive because they failed to account for a time delay and temporal uncertainty when switching from reacting to guessing, a phenomenon previously unreported in the literature. In a follow-up experiment we pro- vide direct evidence for a functionally relevant time delay and temporal uncertainty when switching from reacting to guessing. Collectively, our results indicate that participants failed to account for a time delay and temporal uncertainty associated with switching from reacting to guessing, leading to suboptimal and indecisive behaviour.</p>","PeriodicalId":16563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indecision under time pressure arises from suboptimal switching behaviour.\",\"authors\":\"Seth R Sullivan, Rakshith Lokesh, Jan A Calalo, Truc Ngo, John H Buggeln, Adam M Roth, Christopher Peters, Isaac Kurtzer, Michael J Carter, Joshua G A Cashaback\",\"doi\":\"10.1152/jn.00563.2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Indecisive behaviour can be catastrophic, leading to car crashes or stock market losses. Despite fruitful efforts across several decades to understand decision-making, there has been little research on what leads to indecision. Here we examined how indecisions arise under high-pressure deadlines. In our first experiment participants attempted to select a target by either reacting to a stimulus or guessing, when acting under a high pressure time constraint. We found that participants were suboptimal, displaying a below chance win percentage due to an excessive number of indecisions. Computational modelling suggested that participants were excessively indecisive because they failed to account for a time delay and temporal uncertainty when switching from reacting to guessing, a phenomenon previously unreported in the literature. In a follow-up experiment we pro- vide direct evidence for a functionally relevant time delay and temporal uncertainty when switching from reacting to guessing. Collectively, our results indicate that participants failed to account for a time delay and temporal uncertainty associated with switching from reacting to guessing, leading to suboptimal and indecisive behaviour.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00563.2024\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00563.2024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Indecision under time pressure arises from suboptimal switching behaviour.
Indecisive behaviour can be catastrophic, leading to car crashes or stock market losses. Despite fruitful efforts across several decades to understand decision-making, there has been little research on what leads to indecision. Here we examined how indecisions arise under high-pressure deadlines. In our first experiment participants attempted to select a target by either reacting to a stimulus or guessing, when acting under a high pressure time constraint. We found that participants were suboptimal, displaying a below chance win percentage due to an excessive number of indecisions. Computational modelling suggested that participants were excessively indecisive because they failed to account for a time delay and temporal uncertainty when switching from reacting to guessing, a phenomenon previously unreported in the literature. In a follow-up experiment we pro- vide direct evidence for a functionally relevant time delay and temporal uncertainty when switching from reacting to guessing. Collectively, our results indicate that participants failed to account for a time delay and temporal uncertainty associated with switching from reacting to guessing, leading to suboptimal and indecisive behaviour.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Neurophysiology publishes original articles on the function of the nervous system. All levels of function are included, from the membrane and cell to systems and behavior. Experimental approaches include molecular neurobiology, cell culture and slice preparations, membrane physiology, developmental neurobiology, functional neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, neuropharmacology, systems electrophysiology, imaging and mapping techniques, and behavioral analysis. Experimental preparations may be invertebrate or vertebrate species, including humans. Theoretical studies are acceptable if they are tied closely to the interpretation of experimental data and elucidate principles of broad interest.