Guillaume Pech
@guillaumepech.bsky.social
120 followers 66 following 40 posts
PhD student at ULB in Cognitive Science - funded by fnrs grant | Interested in EEG, Voluntary action, Intention.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
thomas-zhihao-luo.bsky.social
How does the brain decide? 🧠

Our new @nature.com paper shows that neural activity switches from an 'evidence gathering' to a 'commitment' state at a precise moment we call nTc.

After nTc, new evidence is ignored, revealing a neural marker for the instant when the mind is made up.

rdcu.be/eGUrv
Transitions in dynamical regime and neural mode during perceptual decisions - Nature
Simultaneous recordings were made of hundreds of neurons in the rat frontal cortex and striatum, showing that decision commitment involves a rapid, coordinated transition in dynamical regime and neura...
www.nature.com
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
arcethos.bsky.social
[email protected] @onemorebrown.bsky.social and @axc.bsky.social have published a theoretical paper titled “Computational higher-order theories of consciousness” as a book chapter. See the preprint here. philarchive.org/archive/FLECHT
philarchive.org
guillaumepech.bsky.social
The idea behind this measure is that voluntary action requires an effort that involuntary action does not.

Thanks to Elisabeth Pacherie, @emiliecaspar.bsky.social , @axc.bsky.social , Uri Maoz for their help to this work. 4/4
guillaumepech.bsky.social
Moreover, we introduce another measure of volition that aligns with the measures mentioned above: the effort exerted in reporting the decisions. More specifically, participants selected their answers using handgrips that measured the effort exerted. 3/N
guillaumepech.bsky.social
Our study indicates that self-reported volition, the Readiness Potential, and the Temporal Binding increase when making decisions that could increase our remuneration compared to decisions that did not. This was not observed when contrasting decisions that involved more or less deliberation. 2/N
guillaumepech.bsky.social
No confidence, only opinion « I found » « I see » I just wanted to help with my understanding of it not as an expert but as someone interested in these questions :) I think that if you want to help people understanding your claims it’s valuable to have input of what are the peoples understanding
guillaumepech.bsky.social
I will be (maybe wronngly) more confident if it’s just M differences rather than S differences 2/2
guillaumepech.bsky.social
If there is 5 studies, 1 finding a significant effect, 4 that doesn’t, I have the impression that it give extra information to know the magnitude of the effects and their sign in order to evaluate if it is worth trying to pursue this line of research. 1/2
guillaumepech.bsky.social
Ok, I thought that type S and M were from a bayesian framework, which do not adress the uncertainty about long run sampling, but rather the uncertainty of observed data in combination with prior beliefs.
guillaumepech.bsky.social
For the S error, I just see that as a different philosophy, not thinking about the long run sampling. I found sometimes type I & II error confusing as we never conduct the same study in psychology.
guillaumepech.bsky.social
I found the M error pretty convincing. For instance a study claiming 20% effect of a treatment but other studies replicating 5% effects might be considered as a failed replication even though all significant, because the first did a M error.
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
emiliecaspar.bsky.social
New paper on the neural mechanisms associated with resistance to immoral orders in civilian and military populations

@leslie-tricoche.bsky.social, Antonin Rovai & Salvatore Lo Bue

Open Access: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
@moralsocialbrain.bsky.social @erc.europa.eu BIAL @ghentccn.bsky.social
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
liadmudrik.bsky.social
If you are interested in pursuing a PhD in cognitive neuroscience, specially targeting conscious vs. unconscious processing, contact me. We are recruiting 🙏🧠 please RT
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
But in this commentary, we argue that does Centaur does *not* provide a better account of any psychological findings compared to previous models. Centaur is model without a theory. osf.io/preprints/ps...
OSF
osf.io
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
gweindel.bsky.social
Very pleased to say that we are (almost) ready for the 1.0.0 of our HMP #Python package to decompose #EEG into single-trial task related events:
github.com/GWeindel/hmp

There's now a nice documentation:
hmp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/we...

We just need some beta testers, thus RT appreciated!
Welcome — hmp 1.0.0-b.1 documentation
hmp.readthedocs.io
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
lakens.bsky.social
What is the most compelling book providing an overview of the successes and worthwhile contributions that psychology has made over the last century? Has it even been written? As just one example, in my Human Factors course I would discuss the 3rd break light. stanley-r-harris.co.uk/blog/why-do-...
Why do cars have a 3rd brake light
When you hit the brakes, the car’s brakes will flash to warn following drivers that you’re slowing or stopping. Without brake lights, our roads would be chaotic and deadly.
stanley-r-harris.co.uk
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
wimdeneys.bsky.social
"Defining deliberation for dual-process models of reasoning" is now published. Free online access to the published Nat Rev Psy version: rdcu.be/erM5T
Reposted by Guillaume Pech
pci-regreports.bsky.social
NEW: Statement from the PCI RR Managing Board on the withdrawal of Infant and Child Development as a PCI RR-friendly journal, and the decision by Wiley to refuse preprints that have been peer-reviewed by @peercommunityin.bsky.social / @pci-regreports.bsky.social

Read here ➡️ osf.io/tn8mh
In 2024, Infant and Child Development (ICD) withdrew as a PCI RR-friendly journal and reneged on three Stage 1 recommendations issued by PCI RR. In addition, Wiley – the publisher of ICD – notified PCI RR and the PCI core team of its decision to withdraw all Wiley journals from PCI and PCI RR, including an additional 9 PCI-friendly journals. Finally, Wiley appears to have banned all of its ~1600 journals from considering submissions that have been previously reviewed by PCI or PCI RR. This statement explains the history of ICD joining PCI RR and developments that led to the current outcome. The PCI RR Managing Board believes that this shift in policy to become “PCI-hostile” renders Wiley journals incompatible not only with community-based preprint review but with preprint archiving in general.