Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.

IF 1.3 4区 心理学
Tina Seabrooke, Lee Hogarth, C E R Edmunds, Chris J Mitchell
{"title":"Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.","authors":"Tina Seabrooke,&nbsp;Lee Hogarth,&nbsp;C E R Edmunds,&nbsp;Chris J Mitchell","doi":"10.1037/xan0000191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current article concerns human outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT), where Pavlovian cues selectively invigorate instrumental responses that predict common rewarding outcomes. Several recent experiments have observed PIT effects that were insensitive to outcome devaluation manipulations, which has been taken as evidence of an automatic \"associative\" mechanism. Other similar studies observed PIT effects that were sensitive to devaluation, which suggests a more controlled, goal-directed process. Studies supporting the automatic approach have been criticized for using a biased baseline, whereas studies supporting the goal-directed approach have been criticized for priming multiple outcomes at test. The current experiment addressed both of these issues. Participants first learned to perform two instrumental responses to earn two outcomes each (R1-O1/O3, R2-O2/O4), before four Pavlovian stimuli (S1-S4) were trained to predict each outcome. One outcome that was paired with each instrumental response (O3 and O4) was then devalued, so that baseline response choice at test would be balanced. Instrumental responding was then assessed in the presence of each individual Pavlovian stimulus, so that only one outcome was primed per trial. PIT effects were observed for the valued outcomes (ts > 3.96, ps < .001) but not for the devalued outcomes (F < 1, Bayes Factor10 = .29). Hence, when baseline response choice was equated and only one outcome was primed per test trial, PIT was sensitive to outcome devaluation. The data therefore support goal-directed models of PIT. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":"45 1","pages":"95-101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000191","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

The current article concerns human outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT), where Pavlovian cues selectively invigorate instrumental responses that predict common rewarding outcomes. Several recent experiments have observed PIT effects that were insensitive to outcome devaluation manipulations, which has been taken as evidence of an automatic "associative" mechanism. Other similar studies observed PIT effects that were sensitive to devaluation, which suggests a more controlled, goal-directed process. Studies supporting the automatic approach have been criticized for using a biased baseline, whereas studies supporting the goal-directed approach have been criticized for priming multiple outcomes at test. The current experiment addressed both of these issues. Participants first learned to perform two instrumental responses to earn two outcomes each (R1-O1/O3, R2-O2/O4), before four Pavlovian stimuli (S1-S4) were trained to predict each outcome. One outcome that was paired with each instrumental response (O3 and O4) was then devalued, so that baseline response choice at test would be balanced. Instrumental responding was then assessed in the presence of each individual Pavlovian stimulus, so that only one outcome was primed per trial. PIT effects were observed for the valued outcomes (ts > 3.96, ps < .001) but not for the devalued outcomes (F < 1, Bayes Factor10 = .29). Hence, when baseline response choice was equated and only one outcome was primed per test trial, PIT was sensitive to outcome devaluation. The data therefore support goal-directed models of PIT. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

巴甫洛夫-工具迁移中的目标导向控制。
当前的文章关注人类结果选择性巴甫洛夫-工具转移(PIT),其中巴甫洛夫线索选择性地激发预测共同奖励结果的工具反应。最近的几个实验观察到,PIT效应对结果贬值操纵不敏感,这被视为自动“联想”机制的证据。其他类似的研究观察到PIT效应对贬值很敏感,这表明这是一个更受控制、目标导向的过程。支持自动方法的研究因使用有偏基线而受到批评,而支持目标导向方法的研究因在测试中启动多个结果而受到批评。当前的实验解决了这两个问题。参与者首先学习了两种工具反应,分别获得两种结果(R1-O1/O3, R2-O2/O4),然后训练了四种巴甫洛夫刺激(S1-S4)来预测每种结果。然后将与每个工具反应(O3和O4)配对的一个结果贬值,以便测试时的基线反应选择将是平衡的。然后在每个单独的巴甫洛夫刺激存在的情况下评估工具反应,因此每次试验只启动一个结果。在有价值的结果中观察到PIT效应(ts > 3.96, ps < .001),但在有价值的结果中没有观察到PIT效应(F < 1, Bayes Factor10 = .29)。因此,当基线反应选择相等且每次试验只启动一个结果时,PIT对结果贬值敏感。因此,数据支持目标导向的PIT模型。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2019 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信