Training choices toward low value options

Abstract

Food decisions are driven by differences in value of choice alternatives such that high value items are preferred over low value items. However, recent research has demonstrated that by implementing the Cue-Approach Training (CAT) the odds of choosing low value items over high value items can be increased. This effect was explained by increased attention to the low value items induced by CAT. Our goal was to replicate the original findings and to address the question of the underlying mechanism by employing eye-tracking during participants’ choice making. During CAT participants were presented with images of food items and were instructed to quickly respond to some of them when an auditory cue was presented (cued items), and not without this cue (uncued items). Next, participants made choices between two food items that differed on whether they were cued during CAT (cued versus uncued) and in pre-training value (high versus low). As predicted, results showed participants were more likely to select a low value food item over a high value food item for consumption when the low value food item had been cued compared to when the low value item had not been cued. Important, and against our hypothesis, there was no significant increase in gaze time for low value cued items compared to low value uncued items. Participants did spend more time fixating on the chosen item compared to the unchosen alternative, thus replicating previous work in this domain. The present research thus establishes the robustness of CAT as means of facilitating choices for low value over high value food but could not demonstrate that this increased preference was due to increased attention for cued low value items. The present research thus raises the question how CAT may increase choices for low value options.

A computational model for individual differences in non-reinforced learning for individual items

“…Some support for the involvement of attention was found in eyetracking studies with CAT, which found that during the probe phase, participants view chosen Go stimuli more 12,13,18,26 , suggesting that increased gaze time during the probe phase indicated attentional evidence-gathering process, which increased the likelihood of choosing the Go stimuli over NoGo stimuli [27][28][29] . However, most of these studies 13,18,26 did not find enhanced gaze for Go stimuli when they were not chosen, undermining the hypothesis that enhanced attention could drive the CAT preference modification effect on its own. However, these previous mechanistic views have focused on the probe phase where preferences are being expressed, whereas preference is changed during the training phase.…”

“…Attention has also been shown to play a key role in value-based decision making both on its own and in synergy with memory 24,25 . Some support for the involvement of attention was found in eyetracking studies with CAT, which found that during the probe phase, participants view chosen Go stimuli more 12,13,18,26 , suggesting that increased gaze time during the probe phase indicated attentional evidence-gathering process, which increased the likelihood of choosing the Go stimuli over NoGo stimuli [27][28][29] . However, most of these studies 13,18,26 did not find enhanced gaze for Go stimuli when they were not chosen, undermining the hypothesis that enhanced attention could drive the CAT preference modification effect on its own.…”