Mapping sign-tracking and goal-tracking onto human behaviors

Colaizzi, Janna; Flagel, Shelly B.; Joyner, Michelle A.; Gearhardt, Ashley N.; Stewart, Jennifer L.; Paulus, Martin P.

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.018

Cited by 86 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 124 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the fronto-striatal loops involved in flexible behavioral adaptation 21 , 26 – 30 could be differentiated in a cortical component related to supraliminal processing, and a subcortical component involved in subliminal processing 16 , 23 , 25 , 31 , 32 . Another critical issue is whether individual differences in the prevalence of the automatic component over the explicit one can indicate a higher predisposition to develop a maladaptive behavior 13 , 33 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subliminal determinants of cue-guided choice

Garofalo

Sagliano

Starita

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By anticipating potential rewards, external cues can guide behavior to achieve a goal. Whether the conscious elaboration of these cues is necessary to elicit cue-guided choices is still unknown. the goal of the present study is to test whether the subliminal presentation of a visual cue previously paired with a reward is sufficient to bias responses that can lead to the same or a similar reward. To this aim, three experiments compared the subliminal and supraliminal presentation of reward-associated cues during a pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer task. in line with previous evidence, results showed that the supraliminal presentation of reward-associated pavlovian cues biased participant's choice towards motivationally similar rewards (general transfer) as well as towards rewards sharing the precise sensory-specific properties of the cue (outcome-specific transfer). In striking contrast, subliminal cues biased choice only towards motivationally similar rewards (general transfer). taken together, these findings suggest that cue-guided choices are modulated by the level of perceptual threshold (i.e., subliminal vs supraliminal) of reward-associated cues. Although conscious elaboration of the cue is necessary to guide choice towards a specific reward, subliminal processing is still sufficient to push towards choices sharing the motivational properties of the cue. implications for everyday life, clinical conditions, and theoretical accounts of cue-guided choices are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subliminal determinants of cue-guided choice

Garofalo

Sagliano

Starita

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This incentive salience sensitization is posited to cause pathological, cue-induced motivation for drug use that translates into drug-seeking behavior. To date, ISTA has not been thoroughly tested in humans [12,13]. The current study tested the extent to which individual differences in neural correlates of incentive salience attribution to novel alcohol-related cues are evident in humans exhibiting a phenotype proposed to confer risk for AUD via incentive sensitization [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of incentive salience from a first‐order alcohol cue to a novel second‐order alcohol cue among individuals at risk for alcohol use disorder: electrophysiological evidence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsIn susceptible individuals, cues associated with drug use are theorized to take on incentivemotivational properties, including the ability to reinforce higher-order, drug-related associative learning. This study aimed to test this prediction among people varying in risk for alcohol use disorder. Design, setting and participants Repeatedmeasures experiment with a measured individual difference variable at a University psychology laboratory in Missouri, USA. One hundred and six young adults (96 contributed complete data) were pre-selected to represent the upper and lower quartiles of self-reported sensitivity to alcohol's acute effects. Measurements Participants completed a second-order Pavlovian conditioning paradigm in which an initially neutral visual cue (second-order conditional stimulus; CS 2 ) predicted onset of an olfactory cue (first-order conditional stimulus; CS 1 ). Olfactory cues were isolated from alcoholic beverages, sweets and non-comestible substances, each presumed to have a natural history of first-order conditioning. Event-related potential responses to the CS 2 across its conditioning and extinction, and to the CS 1 , provided neurophysiological indices of incentive salience (IS). Findings The IS of the alcohol CS 1 was higher among participants low in alcohol sensitivity (LS), relative to their higher-sensitivity (HS) peers. The IS of the CS 2 paired with the alcohol CS 1 increased across the CS 2 conditioning phase among LS but not HS participants. Also, LS (but not HS) individuals also experienced increases in alcohol craving following alcohol CS 1 exposure, and this change was correlated with increases in the IS of the CS 2 paired with the alcohol CS 1 . Conclusions Alcoholic beverage odor, a proximal cue for alcohol consumption, appears to reinforce conditioning of neurophysiological responses to a novel cue among low alcohol sensitivity (LS) individuals but not high alcohol sensitivity individuals, providing the first evidence that the LS phenotype may be associated with differences in the conditioned reinforcing properties of alcohol-related cues. These findings support the idea that the LS phenotype may increase alcohol use disorder risk via susceptibility to incentive salience sensitization.

show abstract

“…Critically (and unlike the current study), Failing and Theeuwes found that this manipulation of physical salience generated significantly stronger suppression in the frequent location of the high-salience distractor than in the frequent location of the low-salience distractor. In summary, then, it seems that differences in physical salience of distractors can result in different levels of suppression arising from statistical learning, but differences in value (or incentive salience: Berridge & Robinson, 1998;Colaizzi et al, 2020;Pearson et al, 2020) do not. Again this conclusion is consistent with the idea that suppression develops at the level of salience maps relating to physical features, rather than maps encoding value.…”

Section: Location-based Suppression and Reward Learning 27mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward learning and statistical learning independently influence attentional priority of salient distractors in visual search

Pelley¹,

Watson²,

Theeuwes³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing research demonstrates different ways in which attentional prioritisation of visual stimuli is shaped by prior experience: reward learning renders signals of high-value outcomes more likely to capture attention than signals of low-value outcomes, whereas statistical learning can produce attentional suppression of the location in which salient distractor items are likely to appear. The current study combined manipulations of the value and location associated with distractors in visual search to investigate whether these different effects of selection history operate independently, or interact to determine overall attentional prioritisation of salient distractors. In Experiment 1, high- and low-value distractors most frequently appeared in the same location; in Experiment 2, high- and low-value distractors typically appeared in distinct locations. In both experiments, effects of distractor value and location were additive, suggesting that attention-promoting effects of value and attention-suppressing effects of physical salience independently modulate overall attentional priority. Our findings are consistent with a view that sees attention as mediated by a common priority map that receives and integrates separate signals relating to physical salience and value.

show abstract

Mapping sign-tracking and goal-tracking onto human behaviors

Cited by 86 publications

References 124 publications

Subliminal determinants of cue-guided choice

Subliminal determinants of cue-guided choice

Transfer of incentive salience from a first‐order alcohol cue to a novel second‐order alcohol cue among individuals at risk for alcohol use disorder: electrophysiological evidence

Reward learning and statistical learning independently influence attentional priority of salient distractors in visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About