IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/0020330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Neuroeconomics Approach to Inferring Utility Functions in Sensorimotor Control

Author

Listed:
  • Konrad P Körding
  • Izumi Fukunaga
  • Ian S Howard
  • James N Ingram
  • Daniel M Wolpert

Abstract

Making choices is a fundamental aspect of human life. For over a century experimental economists have characterized the decisions people make based on the concept of a utility function. This function increases with increasing desirability of the outcome, and people are assumed to make decisions so as to maximize utility. When utility depends on several variables, indifference curves arise that represent outcomes with identical utility that are therefore equally desirable. Whereas in economics utility is studied in terms of goods and services, the sensorimotor system may also have utility functions defining the desirability of various outcomes. Here, we investigate the indifference curves when subjects experience forces of varying magnitude and duration. Using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm, in which subjects chose between different magnitude–duration profiles, we inferred the indifference curves and the utility function. Such a utility function defines, for example, whether subjects prefer to lift a 4-kg weight for 30 s or a 1-kg weight for a minute. The measured utility function depends nonlinearly on the force magnitude and duration and was remarkably conserved across subjects. This suggests that the utility function, a central concept in economics, may be applicable to the study of sensorimotor control. Economists use the concept of a utility function, which increases with increasing desirability of the outcome, to characterize human decision making. This concept is shown here to apply to the control of movement.

Suggested Citation

  • Konrad P Körding & Izumi Fukunaga & Ian S Howard & James N Ingram & Daniel M Wolpert, 2004. "A Neuroeconomics Approach to Inferring Utility Functions in Sensorimotor Control," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(10), pages 1-1, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:0020330
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020330
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020330&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020330?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas M. Humphrey, 1996. "The early history of the box diagram," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Win, pages 37-75.
    2. Christopher M. Harris & Daniel M. Wolpert, 1998. "Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6695), pages 780-784, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pierre Morel & Philipp Ulbrich & Alexander Gail, 2017. "What makes a reach movement effortful? Physical effort discounting supports common minimization principles in decision making and motor control," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Max Berniker & Megan K O’Brien & Konrad P Kording & Alaa A Ahmed, 2013. "An Examination of the Generalizability of Motor Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Da Silva, Sergio, 2014. "The Mutual Gains from Trade Moderate the Parent-Offspring Conflict - Updated," MPRA Paper 60561, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ignasi Cos, 2017. "Perceived effort for motor control and decision-making," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-6, August.
    5. Da Silva, Sergio, 2013. "The mutual gains from trade moderate the parent-offspring conflict," MPRA Paper 46627, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shogo Yonekura & Yasuo Kuniyoshi, 2017. "Bodily motion fluctuation improves reaching success rate in a neurophysical agent via geometric-stochastic resonance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Max Berniker & Megan K O’Brien & Konrad P Kording & Alaa A Ahmed, 2013. "An Examination of the Generalizability of Motor Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Yanhao Ren & Qiang Luo & Wenlian Lu, 2023. "Synchronization Analysis of Linearly Coupled Systems with Signal-Dependent Noises," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Ashesh Vasalya & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Abderrahmane Kheddar, 2018. "More than just co-workers: Presence of humanoid robot co-worker influences human performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Josh Merel & Donald M Pianto & John P Cunningham & Liam Paninski, 2015. "Encoder-Decoder Optimization for Brain-Computer Interfaces," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    9. Wei Zhang & Sasha Reschechtko & Barry Hahn & Cynthia Benson & Elias Youssef, 2019. "Force-stabilizing synergies can be retained by coordinating sensory-blocked and sensory-intact digits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Julian J Tramper & Bart van den Broek & Wim Wiegerinck & Hilbert J Kappen & Stan Gielen, 2012. "Time-Integrated Position Error Accounts for Sensorimotor Behavior in Time-Constrained Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-10, March.
    11. Vassilios N Christopoulos & Paul R Schrater, 2009. "Grasping Objects with Environmentally Induced Position Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-11, October.
    12. Bastien Berret & Frédéric Jean, 2020. "Stochastic optimal open-loop control as a theory of force and impedance planning via muscle co-contraction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.
    13. H H L M Goossens & A J van Opstal, 2012. "Optimal Control of Saccades by Spatial-Temporal Activity Patterns in the Monkey Superior Colliculus," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Michael Sherback & Francisco J Valero-Cuevas & Raffaello D'Andrea, 2010. "Slower Visuomotor Corrections with Unchanged Latency are Consistent with Optimal Adaptation to Increased Endogenous Noise in the Elderly," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Bastien Berret & Adrien Conessa & Nicolas Schweighofer & Etienne Burdet, 2021. "Stochastic optimal feedforward-feedback control determines timing and variability of arm movements with or without vision," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-24, June.
    16. Nadav S Bar & Sigurd Skogestad & Jose M Marçal & Nachum Ulanovsky & Yossi Yovel, 2015. "A Sensory-Motor Control Model of Animal Flight Explains Why Bats Fly Differently in Light Versus Dark," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Paolo Tommasino & Antonella Maselli & Domenico Campolo & Francesco Lacquaniti & Andrea d’Avella, 2021. "A Hessian-based decomposition characterizes how performance in complex motor skills depends on individual strategy and variability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-32, June.
    18. Joshua G A Cashaback & Heather R McGregor & Ayman Mohatarem & Paul L Gribble, 2017. "Dissociating error-based and reinforcement-based loss functions during sensorimotor learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-28, July.
    19. Jonathan B Dingwell & Joby John & Joseph P Cusumano, 2010. "Do Humans Optimally Exploit Redundancy to Control Step Variability in Walking?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-15, July.
    20. Qiang Luo & Tian Ge & Fabian Grabenhorst & Jianfeng Feng & Edmund T Rolls, 2013. "Attention-Dependent Modulation of Cortical Taste Circuits Revealed by Granger Causality with Signal-Dependent Noise," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:0020330. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.