Neural precursors of decisions that matter—an ERP study of deliberate and arbitrary choice

• Published in: eLife Vol. 8
• Main Authors: Maoz, Uri, Yaffe, Gideon, Koch, Christof, Mudrik, Liad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England eLife Science Publications, Ltd 23.10.2019; eLife Sciences Publications Ltd; eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
• Subjects: Alternatives; arbitrary and deliberate decisions; Behavioral sciences; Choice Behavior; Consciousness; Decision Making; Diffusion models; EEG; Electroencephalography; Evoked Potentials; Free will; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Mental task performance; Models, Neurological; Neural circuitry; Neural stem cells; Neuroscience; Neurosciences; Physiological aspects; Psychological aspects; readiness potential; Research Communication; volition; United States; Los Angeles California; California; Israel; Tel Aviv Israel; United States > US; arbitrary and deliberate decisions; decision-making; free will; readiness potential; EEG; neuroscience; human; volition
• ISSN: 2050-084X; 2050-084X
• DOI: 10.7554/eLife.39787

The readiness potential (RP)—a key ERP correlate of upcoming action—is known to precede subjects' reports of their decision to move. Some view this as evidence against a causal role for consciousness in human decision-making and thus against free-will. But previous work focused on arbitrary decisions—purposeless, unreasoned, and without consequences. It remains unknown to what degree the RP generalizes to deliberate, more ecological decisions. We directly compared deliberate and arbitrary decision-making during a $1000-donation task to non-profit organizations. While we found the expected RPs for arbitrary decisions, they were strikingly absent for deliberate ones. Our results and drift-diffusion model are congruent with the RP representing accumulation of noisy, random fluctuations that drive arbitrary—but not deliberate—decisions. They further point to different neural mechanisms underlying deliberate and arbitrary decisions, challenging the generalizability of studies that argue for no causal role for consciousness in decision-making to real-life decisions. Editorial note: This article has been through an editorial process in which the authors decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review. The Reviewing Editor's assessment is that all the issues have been addressed (<xref ref-type="decision-letter" rid="SA1">see decision letter ).