Mechanisms of habitual approach: Failure to suppress irrelevant responses evoked by previously reward-associated stimuli.

Abstract

Reward learning has a powerful influence on the attention system, causing previously reward-associated stimuli to automatically capture attention. Difficulty ignoring stimuli associated with drug reward has been linked to addiction relapse, and the attention system of drug-dependent patients seems especially influenced by reward history. This and other evidence suggests that value-driven attention has consequences for behavior and decision-making, facilitating a bias to approach and consume the previously reward-associated stimulus even when doing so runs counter to current goals and priorities. Yet, a mechanism linking value-driven attention to behavioral responding and a general approach bias is lacking. Here we show that previously reward-associated stimuli escape inhibitory processing in a go/no-go task. Control experiments confirmed that this value-dependent failure of goal-directed inhibition could not be explained by search history or residual motivation, but depended specifically on the learned association between particular stimuli and reward outcome. When a previously high-value stimulus is encountered, the response codes generated by that stimulus are automatically afforded high priority, bypassing goal-directed cognitive processes involved in suppressing task-irrelevant behavior.

Knowledge about the predictive value of reward conditioned stimuli modulates their interference with cognitive processes

“…Results of the flanker task are in line with data recently obtained by our group (Leganes-Fonteneau et al 2018) and by others (i.e., Bourgeois et al 2016) demonstrating the ability of reward CS to grab preferential attention implicitly. This interference is also congruent with previous examples of reward conditioning effects on a flanker task (Anderson et al 2012(Anderson et al , 2016a. HR CS, paired with increased probabilities of reward, generated more cognitive Figure 2.…”

“…However, in this case, as in others (i.e., Anderson 2015), the implicit nature of the effect generated by CS can only be postulated as no stringent measures of CA were implemented. Anderson et al (2012Anderson et al ( , 2016a also reported the effect of CS as distractors on a modified flanker task, but again without examining the implicit aspects of learning.…”

On the value-dependence of value-driven attentional capture

“…In contrast to the results of Sha and Jiang (2016), but consistent with a large number of prior reports (e.g., Anderson, in press c, 2016a; Anderson et al, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b, 2016b; Miranda & Palmer, 2014; Roper et al, 2014), reward did not significantly modulate performance in the training phase. However, and most critically, performance was significantly affected by the distractors in the test phase.…”

“…Because the distractors are entirely task-irrelevant, they can be implemented in basically any task, including tasks that examine response biases (Anderson et al, 2012, 2016a; see also Krebs, Boehler, Egner, & Woldorff, 2011; Krebs, Boehler, & Woldorff, 2010; Anderson, in press b, for a review). This allows for a broader assessment of the impact of value-driven attention on information processing, and also allows for assessment of generalizability across contexts and situations (Anderson et al, 2012; Anderson, 2015a, 2015b) as well as the enduring nature of the learning (which is only possible under conditions of extinction; Anderson & Yantis, 2013).…”

What is abnormal about addiction-related attentional biases?

“…Perhaps more directly related to addictions, previously reward-associated but currently task-irrelevant stimuli more strongly evoke an associated response in both a flankers task (Anderson et al, 2012) and a Stroop task (Krebs et al, 2010, 2011). Such stimuli have also been shown to escape inhibitory processing in a cued go/no-go task, with their associated response signals more strongly influencing behavior (Anderson et al, 2016a); that is, response inhibition processes that are normally effective at suppressing the associated behavior signaled by a no-go stimulus fail to do so when that stimulus is previously associated with reward. In summary, when an arbitrary reward-associated stimulus captures attention, this attentional orienting is associated with a bias in approach behavior.…”