IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Whether Humans Have an Accurate Model of Their Own Motor Uncertainty in a Speeded Reaching Task

Author

Listed:
  • Hang Zhang
  • Nathaniel D Daw
  • Laurence T Maloney

Abstract

In many motor tasks, optimal performance presupposes that human movement planning is based on an accurate internal model of the subject's own motor error. We developed a motor choice task that allowed us to test whether the internal model implicit in a subject's choices differed from the actual in isotropy (elongation) and variance. Subjects were first trained to hit a circular target on a touch screen within a time limit. After training, subjects were repeatedly shown pairs of targets differing in size and shape and asked to choose the target that was easier to hit. On each trial they simply chose a target – they did not attempt to hit the chosen target. For each subject, we tested whether the internal model implicit in her target choices was consistent with her true error distribution in isotropy and variance. For all subjects, movement end points were anisotropic, distributed as vertically elongated bivariate Gaussians. However, in choosing targets, almost all subjects effectively assumed an isotropic distribution rather than their actual anisotropic distribution. Roughly half of the subjects chose as though they correctly estimated their own variance and the other half effectively assumed a variance that was more than four times larger than the actual, essentially basing their choices merely on the areas of the targets. The task and analyses we developed allowed us to characterize the internal model of motor error implicit in how humans plan reaching movements. In this task, human movement planning – even after extensive training – is based on an internal model of human motor error that includes substantial and qualitative inaccuracies.Author Summary: When you play darts, which part of the dartboard do you aim at? The tiny bull's eye is worth 50 points. The 20-point section is much larger. If you're not very good at dart throwing you may want to take that into account. Your choice of target depends not on how good you are but on how good you think you are – your internal model of your own motor error distribution. If you think you hit exactly where you aim, you should aim at the bull's eye. If you assume you have less error in the horizontal direction, you would tend to choose vertically elongated targets over horizontally elongated ones. Previous work in movement planning hints that people have accurate models of their own motor error; we test this hypothesis. People first practiced speeded reaching to touch targets. We then asked them to choose between targets of varying shapes and sizes. Their pattern of choices allows us to estimate their internal models of their own motor error and compare them to their actual motor error distributions. We found – in contrast to previous work – that people's models of their own motor ability were markedly inaccurate.

Suggested Citation

  • Hang Zhang & Nathaniel D Daw & Laurence T Maloney, 2013. "Testing Whether Humans Have an Accurate Model of Their Own Motor Uncertainty in a Speeded Reaching Task," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003080
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003080
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003080&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003080?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. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Todd E Hudson & Hadley Tassinari & Michael S Landy, 2010. "Compensation for Changing Motor Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Todd E Hudson & Laurence T Maloney & Michael S Landy, 2008. "Optimal Compensation for Temporal Uncertainty in Movement Planning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-9, July.
    4. Konrad P. Körding & Daniel M. Wolpert, 2004. "Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6971), pages 244-247, January.
    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. Jingwei Sun & Jian Li & Hang Zhang, 2019. "Human representation of multimodal distributions as clusters of samples," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-29, May.
    2. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "On the Origins of Suboptimality in Human Probabilistic Inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "On the Origins of Suboptimality in Human Probabilistic Inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2016. "Decision-Making under Ambiguity Is Modulated by Visual Framing, but Not by Motor vs. Non-Motor Context. Experiments and an Information-Theoretic Ambiguity Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Joshua G A Cashaback & Christopher K Lao & Dimitrios J Palidis & Susan K Coltman & Heather R McGregor & Paul L Gribble, 2019. "The gradient of the reinforcement landscape influences sensorimotor learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Todd E Hudson & Uta Wolfe & Laurence T Maloney, 2012. "Speeded Reaching Movements around Invisible Obstacles," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-9, September.
    6. Joseph Snider & Dongpyo Lee & Howard Poizner & Sergei Gepshtein, 2015. "Prospective Optimization with Limited Resources," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-28, September.
    7. Jingwei Sun & Jian Li & Hang Zhang, 2019. "Human representation of multimodal distributions as clusters of samples," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-29, May.
    8. Luigi Acerbi & Daniel M Wolpert & Sethu Vijayakumar, 2012. "Internal Representations of Temporal Statistics and Feedback Calibrate Motor-Sensory Interval Timing," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Wang, 2002. "Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: a subsampling approach," CeMMAP working papers 03/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    11. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    12. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    13. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    14. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    15. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    16. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    17. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    18. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    20. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.

    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:pcbi00:1003080. 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.