人类标志和目标追踪行为的实施:范围综述。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Michelle Heck, Nancy Durieux, Patrick Anselme, Etienne Quertemont
{"title":"人类标志和目标追踪行为的实施:范围综述。","authors":"Michelle Heck, Nancy Durieux, Patrick Anselme, Etienne Quertemont","doi":"10.3758/s13415-024-01230-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Animal research has identified two major phenotypes in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to a reward-associated cue. Individuals called \"sign-trackers\" (STs) preferentially approach the cue, assigning both predictive and incentive values to it. In contrast, individuals called \"goal-trackers\" (GTs) preferentially approach the location of the upcoming reward, assigning only a predictive value to the cue. The ST/GT model has been shown to be relevant to understanding addiction vulnerability and other pathological behaviors in animals. Therefore, recent studies tried to implement this animal model in the human population. This scoping review aimed to identify and map evidence of human sign- and goal-tracking. Studies that explicitly measured human sign- and goal-tracking or related phenomena (e.g., attentional bias induced by reward-related cues), using paradigms in line with the animal model, were eligible for this review. We searched for published, unpublished, and gray literature (PhD theses, posters, conference papers) through the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, OSF, and Google Scholar. The JBI scoping review methodology was adopted. Screening and extraction were carried out by three reviewers, in pairs. A total of 48 studies were identified. These studies used various experimental paradigms and used the term \"sign-tracking\" inconsistently, sometimes implicitly or not at all. We conclude that the literature on human sign-tracking is very heterogeneous on many levels. Overall, evidence supports the existence of sign- and goal-tracking behaviors in humans, although further validated research is crucially needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50672,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementations of sign- and goal-tracking behavior in humans: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Heck, Nancy Durieux, Patrick Anselme, Etienne Quertemont\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13415-024-01230-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Animal research has identified two major phenotypes in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to a reward-associated cue. Individuals called \\\"sign-trackers\\\" (STs) preferentially approach the cue, assigning both predictive and incentive values to it. In contrast, individuals called \\\"goal-trackers\\\" (GTs) preferentially approach the location of the upcoming reward, assigning only a predictive value to the cue. The ST/GT model has been shown to be relevant to understanding addiction vulnerability and other pathological behaviors in animals. Therefore, recent studies tried to implement this animal model in the human population. This scoping review aimed to identify and map evidence of human sign- and goal-tracking. Studies that explicitly measured human sign- and goal-tracking or related phenomena (e.g., attentional bias induced by reward-related cues), using paradigms in line with the animal model, were eligible for this review. We searched for published, unpublished, and gray literature (PhD theses, posters, conference papers) through the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, OSF, and Google Scholar. The JBI scoping review methodology was adopted. Screening and extraction were carried out by three reviewers, in pairs. A total of 48 studies were identified. These studies used various experimental paradigms and used the term \\\"sign-tracking\\\" inconsistently, sometimes implicitly or not at all. We conclude that the literature on human sign-tracking is very heterogeneous on many levels. Overall, evidence supports the existence of sign- and goal-tracking behaviors in humans, although further validated research is crucially needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-024-01230-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-024-01230-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动物研究发现,将激励显著性归因于奖励相关线索的倾向有两种主要表型。被称为 "标志追踪者"(STs)的个体会优先接近线索,并赋予其预测价值和激励价值。与此相反,被称为 "目标追踪者"(GTs)的个体会优先接近即将获得奖励的位置,只对线索赋予预测价值。ST/GT 模型已被证明与理解动物的成瘾脆弱性和其他病理行为有关。因此,最近的研究试图在人类中应用这一动物模型。本次范围界定综述旨在识别和绘制人类信号和目标追踪的证据。使用与动物模型一致的范式,明确测量人类标志和目标追踪或相关现象(如奖励相关线索诱发的注意偏差)的研究均符合本综述的要求。我们通过以下数据库搜索了已发表、未发表和灰色文献(博士论文、海报、会议论文):MEDLINE、Scopus、PsycINFO、Embase、OSF 和 Google Scholar。采用了 JBI 范围审查方法。筛选和提取工作由三位审稿人轮流进行。共确定了 48 项研究。这些研究使用了不同的实验范式,对 "体征追踪 "一词的使用也不一致,有时是隐含的,有时根本没有使用。我们的结论是,关于人类手势跟踪的文献在很多层面上都存在很大差异。总体而言,尽管亟需进一步的验证研究,但有证据支持人类存在手势和目标追踪行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementations of sign- and goal-tracking behavior in humans: A scoping review.

Animal research has identified two major phenotypes in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to a reward-associated cue. Individuals called "sign-trackers" (STs) preferentially approach the cue, assigning both predictive and incentive values to it. In contrast, individuals called "goal-trackers" (GTs) preferentially approach the location of the upcoming reward, assigning only a predictive value to the cue. The ST/GT model has been shown to be relevant to understanding addiction vulnerability and other pathological behaviors in animals. Therefore, recent studies tried to implement this animal model in the human population. This scoping review aimed to identify and map evidence of human sign- and goal-tracking. Studies that explicitly measured human sign- and goal-tracking or related phenomena (e.g., attentional bias induced by reward-related cues), using paradigms in line with the animal model, were eligible for this review. We searched for published, unpublished, and gray literature (PhD theses, posters, conference papers) through the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, OSF, and Google Scholar. The JBI scoping review methodology was adopted. Screening and extraction were carried out by three reviewers, in pairs. A total of 48 studies were identified. These studies used various experimental paradigms and used the term "sign-tracking" inconsistently, sometimes implicitly or not at all. We conclude that the literature on human sign-tracking is very heterogeneous on many levels. Overall, evidence supports the existence of sign- and goal-tracking behaviors in humans, although further validated research is crucially needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience (CABN) offers theoretical, review, and primary research articles on behavior and brain processes in humans. Coverage includes normal function as well as patients with injuries or processes that influence brain function: neurological disorders, including both healthy and disordered aging; and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. CABN is the leading vehicle for strongly psychologically motivated studies of brain–behavior relationships, through the presentation of papers that integrate psychological theory and the conduct and interpretation of the neuroscientific data. The range of topics includes perception, attention, memory, language, problem solving, reasoning, and decision-making; emotional processes, motivation, reward prediction, and affective states; and individual differences in relevant domains, including personality. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience is a publication of the Psychonomic Society.
×
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