The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer

Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer
Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer
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.
Pavlovian-instrumental transfer, outcome devaluation, goal-directed control
2329-8456
95-101
Seabrooke, Tina
bf0d9ea5-8cf7-494b-9707-891762fce6c3
Hogarth, Lee
c0343170-98f6-43fd-a08c-58b8956ca435
Edmunds, C. E. R.
5c39b565-a5f8-495c-a6eb-4a23b0afea3f
Mitchell, Chris J.
348942ac-ea98-494d-ba4c-21e85273575a
Seabrooke, Tina
bf0d9ea5-8cf7-494b-9707-891762fce6c3
Hogarth, Lee
c0343170-98f6-43fd-a08c-58b8956ca435
Edmunds, C. E. R.
5c39b565-a5f8-495c-a6eb-4a23b0afea3f
Mitchell, Chris J.
348942ac-ea98-494d-ba4c-21e85273575a

Seabrooke, Tina, Hogarth, Lee, Edmunds, C. E. R. and Mitchell, Chris J. (2019) Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 45 (1), 95-101. (doi:10.1037/xan0000191).

Record type: Article

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.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 January 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 1 January 2019
Published date: 1 January 2019
Keywords: Pavlovian-instrumental transfer, outcome devaluation, goal-directed control

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 436106
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/436106
ISSN: 2329-8456
PURE UUID: 9e27f0a5-0a4e-44f2-9b2a-f61649c7c666
ORCID for Tina Seabrooke: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4119-8389

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Nov 2019 17:30
Last modified: 26 Nov 2021 03:20

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Tina Seabrooke ORCID iD
Author: Lee Hogarth
Author: C. E. R. Edmunds
Author: Chris J. Mitchell

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×