Working for food you don’t desire. Cues interfere with goal-directed food-seeking

Watson, Poppy; Wiers, Reinout W.; Hommel, Bernhard; Wit, Sanne de

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.005

Cited by 151 publications

(196 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned in the Introduction, in outcome-specific PIT the outcome must be explicitly accessed through a mental representation (a mental model) not available to the MF system and has hence been associated with the MB prospective system (Cartoni, PuglisiAllegra, & Baldassarre, 2013;Dolan & Dayan, 2013;Clark, Hollon, & Phillips, 2012). Recent work has shown that the MB system can also access MF values (Cushman & Morris, 2015), which might explain the persistence of outcomespecific PIT after devaluation (Eder & Dignath, 2015;Watson et al, 2014;Corbit et al, 2007;Holland, 2004;Rescorla, 1994) and extinction (Rosas, Paredes-Olay, Garcia-Gutierrez, Espinosa, & Abad, 2010). However, such an interpretation of our data would have allowed even strongly MB participants to show strong PIT effects, which was not the case as it arose primarily in the absence of, or in conflict with, MB control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, outcomespecific PIT requires access to the specific nature of the outcome associated with the Pavlovian stimulus s. Computationally, this is by definition not contained in the MF value and, therefore, must depend on aspects of MB evaluation. On the other hand, devaluation of the outcome frequently fails to impact outcome-specific PIT (Eder & Dignath, 2015;Watson, Wiers, Hommel, & de Wit, 2014;Hogarth & Chase, 2011;Allman, DeLeon, Cataldo, Holland, & Johnson, 2010;Hogarth, Dickinson, & Duka, 2010;Corbit, Janak, & Balleine, 2007;Holland, 2004;Rescorla, 1994), suggesting computational mixtures, with MB processes for instance retrieving MF values that are resistant to devaluation. Indeed, possibilities for such complex interactions have been increasingly examined recently (Cushman & Morris, 2015;Huys et al, 2012Huys et al, , 2015Guitart-Masip et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Don't Think, Just Feel the Music: Individuals with Strong Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects Rely Less on Model-based Reinforcement Learning

Sebold

Schad

Nebe

et al. 2016

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral choice can be characterized along two axes. One axis distinguishes reflexive, modelfree systems that slowly accumulate values through experience and a model-based system that uses knowledge to reason prospectively. The second axis distinguishes Pavlovian valuation of stimuli from instrumental valuation of actions or stimulus-action pairs. This results in four values and many possible interactions between them, with important consequences for accounts of individual variation. We here explored whether individual variation along one axis was related to individual variation along the other. Specifically, we asked whether individuals' balance between model-based and model-free learning was related to their tendency to show Pavlovian interferences with instrumental decisions. In two independent samples with a total of 243 participants, Pavlovian-instrumental transfer effects were negatively correlated with the strength of model-based reasoning in a two-step task. This suggests a potential common underlying substrate predisposing individuals to both have strong Pavlovian interference and be less model-based and provides a framework within which to interpret the observation of both effects in addiction. Abstract ■ Behavioral choice can be characterized along two axes. One axis distinguishes reflexive, model-free systems that slowly accumulate values through experience and a model-based system that uses knowledge to reason prospectively. The second axis distinguishes Pavlovian valuation of stimuli from instrumental valuation of actions or stimulus-action pairs. This results in four values and many possible interactions between them, with important consequences for accounts of individual variation. We here explored whether individual variation along one axis was related to individual variation along the other. Specifically, we asked whether individuals' balance between model-based and model-free learning was related to their tendency to show Pavlovian interferences with instrumental decisions. In two independent samples with a total of 243 participants, Pavlovianinstrumental transfer effects were negatively correlated with the strength of model-based reasoning in a two-step task. This suggests a potential common underlying substrate predisposing individuals to both have strong Pavlovian interference and be less model-based and provides a framework within which to interpret the observation of both effects in addiction. ■

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Don't Think, Just Feel the Music: Individuals with Strong Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects Rely Less on Model-based Reinforcement Learning

Sebold

Schad

Nebe

et al. 2016

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study by Watson et al (2014), participants learned to press keys for two food rewards (chocolate and popcorn) and to associate specific stimuli with the delivery of those rewards. Prior to testing, some subjects were satiated on one of the food rewards, whereas others remained hungry.…”

Section: Obesogenic Food Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning and Motivational Processes Contributing to Pavlovian–Instrumental Transfer and Their Neural Bases: Dopamine and Beyond

Corbit

Balleine

2015

Behavioral Neuroscience of Motivation

102

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pavlovian stimuli exert a range of effects on behavior from simple conditioned reflexes, such as salivation, to altering the vigor and direction of instrumental actions. It is currently accepted that these distinct behavioral effects stem from two sources (i) the various associative connections between predictive stimuli and the component features of the events that these stimuli predict and (ii) the distinct motivational and cognitive functions served by cues, particularly their arousing and informational effects on the selection and performance of specific actions. Here, we describe studies that have assessed these latter phenomena using a paradigm that has come to be called Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. We focus first on behavioral experiments that have described distinct sources of stimulus control derived from the general affective and outcome-specific predictions of conditioned stimuli, referred to as general transfer and specific transfer, respectively. Subsequently, we describe research efforts attempting to establish the neural bases of these transfer effects, largely in the afferent and efferent connections of the nucleus accumbens (NAc) core and shell. Finally, we examine the role of predictive cues in examples of aberrant stimulus control associated with psychiatric disorders and addiction.

show abstract

“…Strong action-priming effects have been reported in free-choice tests where participants are freely able to respond on each test trial (see for example Eder et al, in press;Hogarth and Chase, 2011;Watson et al, 2014). Presumably, as there is no relevant, discriminative stimulus signaling the correct response during a free-choice test, action selection via outcome anticipation has more space in which to operate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…There is evidence that more salient outcomes are more likely to be acquired (Dutzi and Hommel, 2009) and it seems reasonable to consider that outcomes with more motivational significance (for example monetary outcomes) might be learned more easily. A related paradigm, the Pavlovian-to-instrumental-transfer (PIT) task, has generally used motivationally relevant outcomes to demonstrate outcome-response priming (Colwill and Rescorla, 1988;Estes, 1948;Hogarth and Chase, 2011;Watson et al, 2014). The majority of these studies have also used simple one-to-one mappings of actions and outcomes and generally only examined two response keys (although see De Wit et al, 2013 for a more complex design).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Limits of ideomotor action–outcome acquisition

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideomotor theory proposes that goal-directed action emerges from the implicit, incidental acquisition of bi-directional associations between actions and their outcomes. In line with this idea, a simple two-stage priming paradigm has provided evidence that presentation of outcomes primes previously associated actions. In the current study we compare the standard priming paradigm with two actions and two unique outcomes (Experiment 1) with two more complex, but otherwise identical versions (Experiment 2: two vs. four actions with four outcomes). Our results show stronger evidence of action-outcome learning in the simple compared to the more complex versions. We suggest that, when using the classic two-stage paradigm, action-outcome acquisition is limited to just a few action-outcome associations that can be concurrently learned-at least if learning is not supported by discriminative stimuli and outcomes are not salient or motivationally relevant. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled SI: Prediction and Attention.

show abstract

Working for food you don’t desire. Cues interfere with goal-directed food-seeking

Cited by 151 publications

References 54 publications

Don't Think, Just Feel the Music: Individuals with Strong Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects Rely Less on Model-based Reinforcement Learning

Don't Think, Just Feel the Music: Individuals with Strong Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects Rely Less on Model-based Reinforcement Learning

Learning and Motivational Processes Contributing to Pavlovian–Instrumental Transfer and Their Neural Bases: Dopamine and Beyond

Limits of ideomotor action–outcome acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About