Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.

Humans constantly decide among multiple action plans. Carrying out one action usually implies that other plans are suppressed. Here we make use of inter-trial effects to determine whether suppression of non-chosen action plans is due to proactively preparing for upcoming decisions or due to retroact...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christian Wolf, Alexander C Schütz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226982
id doaj-fa74e983c1ce4bbba4bb255bd0d947ec
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fa74e983c1ce4bbba4bb255bd0d947ec2021-03-03T21:20:57ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-011412e022698210.1371/journal.pone.0226982Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.Christian WolfAlexander C SchützHumans constantly decide among multiple action plans. Carrying out one action usually implies that other plans are suppressed. Here we make use of inter-trial effects to determine whether suppression of non-chosen action plans is due to proactively preparing for upcoming decisions or due to retroactive influences from previous decisions. Participants received rewards for timely and accurate saccades to targets appearing left or right from fixation. Each block interleaved trials with one (single-trial) or two targets (choice-trial). Whereas single-trial rewards were always identical, rewards for the two targets in choice-trials could either be identical (unbiased) or differ (biased) within one block. We analyzed single-trial latencies as a function of idiosyncratic choice-consistency or reward-bias, the previous trial type and whether the same or the other target was selected in the preceding trial. After choice-trials, single-trial responses to the previously non-chosen target were delayed. For biased choices, inter-trial effects were strongest when choices were followed by a single-trial to the non-chosen target. In the unbiased condition, inter-trial effects increased with increasing individual consistency of choice behavior. These findings suggest that the suppression of alternative action plans is not coupled to target selection and motor execution but instead depends on top-down signals like the overall preference of one target over another.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226982
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Christian Wolf
Alexander C Schütz
spellingShingle Christian Wolf
Alexander C Schütz
Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Christian Wolf
Alexander C Schütz
author_sort Christian Wolf
title Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
title_short Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
title_full Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
title_fullStr Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
title_full_unstemmed Choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
title_sort choice-induced inter-trial inhibition is modulated by idiosyncratic choice-consistency.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Humans constantly decide among multiple action plans. Carrying out one action usually implies that other plans are suppressed. Here we make use of inter-trial effects to determine whether suppression of non-chosen action plans is due to proactively preparing for upcoming decisions or due to retroactive influences from previous decisions. Participants received rewards for timely and accurate saccades to targets appearing left or right from fixation. Each block interleaved trials with one (single-trial) or two targets (choice-trial). Whereas single-trial rewards were always identical, rewards for the two targets in choice-trials could either be identical (unbiased) or differ (biased) within one block. We analyzed single-trial latencies as a function of idiosyncratic choice-consistency or reward-bias, the previous trial type and whether the same or the other target was selected in the preceding trial. After choice-trials, single-trial responses to the previously non-chosen target were delayed. For biased choices, inter-trial effects were strongest when choices were followed by a single-trial to the non-chosen target. In the unbiased condition, inter-trial effects increased with increasing individual consistency of choice behavior. These findings suggest that the suppression of alternative action plans is not coupled to target selection and motor execution but instead depends on top-down signals like the overall preference of one target over another.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226982
work_keys_str_mv AT christianwolf choiceinducedintertrialinhibitionismodulatedbyidiosyncraticchoiceconsistency
AT alexandercschutz choiceinducedintertrialinhibitionismodulatedbyidiosyncraticchoiceconsistency
_version_ 1714817411396403200