Surreal illustration of an interconnected brain, representing the integration of thought and action in decision-making.

Decoding Decisions: How Your Brain Bridges Thought and Action

Jordan Keane in Mind & Education June 2025 • 5 min read.

"Unlock the secrets of decision-making and learn how your brain seamlessly integrates choices with physical actions for a more effective life."

Imagine reaching for a refreshing drink on a hot summer day. The simple act of choosing between iced tea and sparkling water highlights a fundamental aspect of our cognitive function: decision-making. It determines our everyday choices and shapes the trajectories of our movements, our lives, and even our societies. The path from considering options to taking action is a complex interplay of brain processes that scientists are just beginning to fully understand.

For years, research in this area has been divided. Some models focus on the 'value' of options, suggesting that we weigh abstract representations to make choices. Other models emphasize the 'action' itself, proposing that decisions are made at the level of motor planning and execution. These approaches often treat decision-making as either a process of evaluating abstract values or as a series of motor actions, but rarely both. But how do these two perspectives connect? Is there a way to bridge the gap between thought and action?

This article explores the latest research and models attempting to unify these perspectives. We'll delve into how the brain continuously integrates information, grades options, and distributes processes from the moment we perceive choices to the completion of our movements. Understanding the links between decision-making and action can provide valuable insights into complex behaviors, social interactions, and the very mechanisms by which decisions are formed.

Two Halves of a Whole Decision: Value vs. Action

Surreal illustration of an interconnected brain, representing the integration of thought and action in decision-making.

Traditional theories often place decision-making into two distinct camps: good-based and action-based models. Good-based models propose that we select options based on an abstract value space. In this space, multiple sources of information combine to create a subjective value for each option, guiding our choices. Imagine comparing two chocolate bars; each has a unique subjective value derived from your preferences and past experiences. The option with the highest value 'wins,' and only then do we plan the action to obtain it.

In contrast, action-based models argue that choice options are represented within sensorimotor maps of space. These maps directly reflect how each option is physically situated in the environment. Consider reaching for a glass of water: the action-based model suggests that our brains represent the movement required to grasp each alternative, and the decision emerges from this sensorimotor representation. Each option's representation is sensorimotor, reflecting the details of the movement associated with acting on that alternative.

Good-Based Models: Decisions are made based on abstract values assigned to different options.
Action-Based Models: Decisions are made at the level of physical movements and motor planning.
Serial Processing: Good-based theories often assume serial processing, where the decision is complete before movement planning begins.
Parallel Processing: Action-based theories often involve parallel processing, where movement representations are maintained simultaneously.

The critical question then becomes: in what representational space is an option selected? And when does the decision truly get made? Is it before the movement is specified, or does the decision evolve until the movement is complete? As it turns out, the answer may lie somewhere in the middle, challenging us to think of decision-making as a continuous, integrated process rather than a series of discrete steps.

The Continuous Mind: Evolving Decisions

By recognizing that decision-making isn't confined to a single moment but evolves continuously, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of the intricate processes governing our choices and actions. New research is poised to explore sequential decisions, where the enactment of one choice influences subsequent ones, and social signaling, where our movements broadcast our evolving decision process to others. This dynamic perspective promises deeper insights into the complexities of the human mind, paving the way for more effective strategies to improve how we think, decide, and act.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1111/nyas.13973, Alternate LINK

Title: Models, Movements, And Minds: Bridging The Gap Between Decision Making And Action

Subject: History and Philosophy of Science

Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Publisher: Wiley

Authors: Nathan J. Wispinski, Jason P. Gallivan, Craig S. Chapman

Published: 2020-03-01

Everything You Need To Know

What are the two main perspectives on how the brain makes decisions, and how do they differ?

The two main perspectives are 'Good-Based Models' and 'Action-Based Models'. 'Good-Based Models' suggest decisions are based on abstract values assigned to different options. These values are derived from multiple sources of information and past experiences. In contrast, 'Action-Based Models' argue that decisions are made at the level of physical movements and motor planning, representing options within sensorimotor maps of space. 'Good-Based Models' often assume serial processing where the decision is complete before movement planning begins, while 'Action-Based Models' involve parallel processing where movement representations are maintained simultaneously.

How do 'Good-Based Models' explain the decision-making process?

'Good-Based Models' propose that we select options based on an abstract value space. Multiple sources of information combine to create a subjective value for each option. The option with the highest value 'wins,' and only then do we plan the action to obtain it. For example, comparing two chocolate bars, each has a unique subjective value derived from your preferences and past experiences, guiding your choice.

Can you explain how 'Action-Based Models' view decision-making in relation to physical movements?

'Action-Based Models' argue that choice options are represented within sensorimotor maps of space, directly reflecting how each option is physically situated in the environment. These models suggest that our brains represent the movement required to grasp each alternative, and the decision emerges from this sensorimotor representation. Each option's representation is sensorimotor, reflecting the details of the movement associated with acting on that alternative. Consider reaching for a glass of water; the 'Action-Based Model' suggests that the brain represents the movement required to grasp the glass.

What is meant by the idea that decision-making is a continuous process?

The concept of decision-making as a continuous process challenges the traditional view of it being confined to a single moment. It suggests that decision-making evolves continuously, with the brain continuously integrating information, grading options, and distributing processes from the moment we perceive choices to the completion of our movements. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of the intricate processes governing our choices and actions, as well as taking into account sequential decisions and social signaling.

What future areas of research could help to enhance our understanding of the link between choices and actions?

Future research is poised to explore sequential decisions, where the enactment of one choice influences subsequent ones, and social signaling, where our movements broadcast our evolving decision process to others. Studies on sequential decisions can reveal how initial choices affect later ones, while research on social signaling can illuminate how our movements communicate our evolving decisions to others. These insights could pave the way for more effective strategies to improve how we think, decide, and act in both individual and social contexts.