Deliberation is a controllable process governed by desirability and cognitive effort

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Humans spend a lifetime making decisions based on incoming sensory information and goals. Prominent theories of perceptual decision-making have described the components of deliber-ation process, yet they lack a unifying principle that governs how the nervous system tunes the deliberation process across multiple contexts. Desirability (reward) and effort (energy) are major determinants in governing a broad range of human and animal behaviour, such as for-aging, walking, and decisions. Here we develop a theory where desirability and cognitive effort tune the control gains that govern deliberation. Several hallmark features of decision behaviour simply emerge from the model, with the deliberation process closely resembling low-dimensional neural dynamics. We also predict and provide a novel mechanistic explanation for choking-under-pressure, where extremely large rewards lead to performance deficits. Our principled framework explains both behavioural and neural phenomena while providing a path to unify disparate fields.
Full text 1,119 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Humans spend a lifetime making decisions based on incoming sensory information and goals. Prominent theories of perceptual decision-making have described the components of deliber-ation process, yet they lack a unifying principle that governs how the nervous system tunes the deliberation process across multiple contexts. Desirability (reward) and effort (energy) are major determinants in governing a broad range of human and animal behaviour, such as for-aging, walking, and decisions. Here we develop a theory where desirability and cognitive effort tune the control gains that govern deliberation. Several hallmark features of decision behaviour simply emerge from the model, with the deliberation process closely resembling low-dimensional neural dynamics. We also predict and provide a novel mechanistic explanation for choking-under-pressure, where extremely large rewards lead to performance deficits. Our principled framework explains both behavioural and neural phenomena while providing a path to unify disparate fields. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00