
Young woman making choice among different things at flea market. (© JackF - stock.adobe.com)
Brain Scans Suggest Free Choices and Visual Decisions Share Common Neural Pattern
In A Nutshell
- A new study found that the brain builds toward a voluntary choice using the same gradual evidence-accumulation process observed in basic visual decisions.
- Researchers tracked electrical brain activity in 49 adults as they freely chose between two colors or confirmed a single presented color, finding the key signals looked nearly identical in both cases.
- Faster decisions produced steeper brain signal ramp-ups, while all decisions, fast or slow, converged to the same signal level just before a response was made.
- A third brain signal behaved differently, acting more like a final “go” switch for movement than a tracker of the decision itself.
Picking a coffee mug feels nothing like confirming the color of a balloon on a screen. One involves personal preference; the other is closer to simple identification. Yet a new study found the two may share more neural common ground than expected. In both cases, the brain appears to build toward a decision by gradually piling up internal “evidence” until a tipping point triggers action.
Neuroscientists have long mapped where voluntary decisions happen in the brain, but how those choices actually form has been harder to pin down. In tasks where people evaluate what they see, researchers have identified electrical signals that ramp up like a filling glass of water until hitting a threshold, at which point a decision clicks. Whether that same pattern holds for internally driven choices, where there’s no right answer and no external pressure, was an open question.
A team at the University of Melbourne and New York University Abu Dhabi set out to answer it. Their findings, published in Imaging Neuroscience, show that two of the three brain signals associated with decision-making and movement preparation behaved similarly whether participants were making a free choice between two options or confirming a single presented option, while a third looked more like a late-stage movement gate. The results point to a shared decision-making pattern regardless of whether choices are guided by the outside world or by personal preference.
A Balloon Task Designed to Isolate the Decision Itself
Forty-nine adults, ages 18 to 39, wore electrode caps that recorded their brain’s electrical activity while completing a color-choice task. On some trials, participants saw a balloon painted in two colors and freely chose which they preferred. On others, the balloon showed only one color, so the “choice” was already made. To give the free-choice trials a sense of purpose, participants were told they were collecting balloons to decorate a rainbow-themed party.
One design detail mattered more than any other: every response was made by pressing a single button with the right middle finger, making the physical action identical no matter what the person decided. By holding the movement constant, the researchers could cleanly separate brain signals related to forming a decision from those tied to planning which hand or finger to move, a problem that has muddied previous research.
From there, the team focused on three brain signals known from perceptual decision research: a gradually increasing positive wave over the back-center of the scalp linked to building evidence toward a choice; a motor-readiness signal over the left scalp as the hand prepared to respond; and a slow negative wave historically tied to preparing voluntary movements.
Faster Decisions Produced Steeper Brain Signals
If the brain forms voluntary choices through the same gradual evidence-building process used in perceptual tasks, the researchers expected two patterns: steeper ramping signals on faster trials, and signals that all converge to roughly the same peak level just before the button press, as if every decision requires the “glass” to hit the same fill line before action is triggered.
That is precisely what they found for two of the three signals. The positive wave over the back of the scalp showed both patterns for both free-choice and single-option trials: steep on fast trials, gradual on slow ones, but converging to a similar level just before the button press. The motor-readiness signal showed the same behavior.
The third signal told a different story. It reached a consistent level before the button press, consistent with a threshold that triggers movement, but the evidence that it tracked the ongoing buildup was weaker. The researchers interpreted it as more of a late-stage motor gate, a final “go” switch, rather than a running tally of the decision itself.
Voluntary and Forced Decisions Looked More Alike Than Different
Perhaps the most notable finding was what didn’t differ between the two types of decisions. When the researchers compared brain wave shapes for free-choice trials against single-option trials, they found no reliable differences in the signals immediately before the response. An early difference appeared in the motor-readiness signal, but this likely reflected the fact that free-choice decisions took longer on average, about 1.10 seconds versus 0.86 seconds, meaning the buildup simply started at different times.
That similarity is notable because the two types of trials are quite different mental tasks. Choosing between two colors based on preference requires internal deliberation. Confirming a single presented color requires only identifying it and committing. Yet the brain signals that build toward action look essentially the same.
The researchers also took care to ensure the results weren’t artifacts of overlapping brain signals, using a mathematical technique to separate stimulus-related and decision-related activity and a spatial filtering method to sharpen the geographic precision of the recordings.
The results fit a growing body of evidence that the brain uses a common strategy across different types of decisions: accumulate evidence from the eyes, from memory, or from personal preferences until enough has piled up to cross a threshold, then act. That consistency could give researchers new tools for studying how voluntary decisions unfold, including future work on how decision-making goes wrong.
At the level of brain signals, it turns out, a preference and a perception may be more alike than they feel.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a peer-reviewed research study and is intended for informational purposes only. The findings reflect results from a controlled laboratory experiment and may not apply to all real-world decision-making contexts. Readers should not draw clinical or diagnostic conclusions from this research.
Paper Notes
Limitations
The study’s design used a single right-handed button press for all responses, which was necessary for isolating decision formation from action selection but also means the findings may not generalize to situations where people must choose between different physical actions, such as reaching left or right. The forced-decision condition, while serving as a useful comparison, still required participants to identify a color and commit to it, making it a simple perceptual decision rather than a purely reflexive response. The cover story about decorating a party was intended to encourage genuine choice behavior, but the researchers acknowledged between-participant variability in choice strategies. The study also avoided imposing time deadlines, which preserved the voluntary nature of the decisions but means the findings may not extend to time-pressured voluntary decisions. The authors noted that the left-hemisphere readiness potential showed less reliable evidence for slope scaling with response times, and its role as an evidence accumulation signal versus a motor gate remains uncertain. The change-of-mind component of the task was not analyzed in this paper and will be the focus of a future publication.
Funding and Disclosures
The study was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award to Daniel Feuerriegel and a Melbourne Research Scholarship awarded to Lauren Fong from the University of Melbourne. The authors reported no competing interests, and the funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of results. The study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number 27017). Participants received either $30 AUD or two course credits.
Publication Details
Title: “Tracing the neural trajectories of evidence accumulation and motor preparation processes during voluntary decisions” | Authors: Lauren C. Fong, Paul M. Garrett, Philip L. Smith, Robert Hester, Stefan Bode, and Daniel Feuerriegel | Affiliations: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Science, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates | Journal: Imaging Neuroscience, Volume 4, 2026 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/IMAG.a.1184 | Published under: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license | Corresponding Author: Lauren C. Fong ([email protected]) | Received: November 3, 2025; Revised: February 27, 2026; Accepted: February 27, 2026; Available Online: March 9, 2026







