↓ Skip to main content

Should I stay or should I go? Conceptual underpinnings of goal-directed actions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Should I stay or should I go? Conceptual underpinnings of goal-directed actions
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Mirabella

Abstract

All actions, even the simplest like moving an arm to grasp a pen, are associated with energy costs. Thus all mobile organisms possess the ability to evaluate resources and select those behaviors that are most likely to lead to the greatest accrual of valuable items (reward) in the near or, especially in the case of humans, distant future. The evaluation process is performed at all possible stages of the series of decisions that lead to the building of a goal-directed action or to its suppression. This is because all animals have a limited amount of energy and resources; to survive and be able to reproduce they have to minimize the costs and maximize the outcomes of their actions. These computations are at the root of behavioral flexibility. Two executive functions play a major role in generating flexible behaviors: (i) the ability to predict future outcomes of goal-directed actions; and (ii) the ability to cancel them when they are unlikely to accomplish valuable results. These two processes operate continuously during the entire course of a movement: during its genesis, its planning and even its execution, so that the motor output can be modulated or suppressed at any time before its execution. In this review, functional interactions of the extended neural network subserving generation and inhibition of goal-directed movements will be outlined, leading to the intriguing hypothesis that the performance of actions and their suppression are not specified by independent sets of brain regions. Rather, it will be proposed that acting and stopping are functions emerging from specific interactions between largely overlapping brain regions, whose activity is intimately linked (directly or indirectly) to the evaluations of pros and cons of an action. Such mechanism would allow the brain to perform as a highly efficient and flexible system, as different functions could be computed exploiting the same components operating in different configurations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 137 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 24%
Researcher 27 19%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 36 26%
Psychology 36 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Engineering 10 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 28 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,379,655
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#1,128
of 1,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,741
of 262,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#45
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.