↓ Skip to main content

Causal role of the inferolateral prefrontal cortex in balancing goal-directed and habitual control of behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Causal role of the inferolateral prefrontal cortex in balancing goal-directed and habitual control of behavior
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-27678-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Bogdanov, Jan E. Timmermann, Jan Gläscher, Friedhelm C. Hummel, Lars Schwabe

Abstract

Successful adaptation to complex environments depends on the balance of at least two systems: a flexible but slow goal-directed system encoding action-outcome associations and an efficient but rigid habitual system linking responses to preceding stimuli. Recent evidence suggests that the inferolateral prefrontal cortex (ilPFC), a region well known to contribute to cognitive control processes, may play a crucial role in the balance of goal-directed and habitual responding. This evidence, however, comes mainly from correlational data and whether the ilPFC is indeed causally involved in the goal-directed vs. habitual control of behavior is unclear. Here, we used neuro-navigated theta-burst stimulation (TBS) to either inhibit or enhance right ilPFC functionality before participants completed an instrumental learning task designed to probe goal-directed vs. habitual behavioral control. TBS did not affect overall learning performance. However, participants that had received inhibitory TBS were less able to adapt their behavior to altered task demands, indicating a shift from goal-directed towards more habitual control of behavior. Sham or excitatory TMS groups showed no such effect and were comparable in their performance to an unstimulated control group. Our findings indicate a causal role of the ilPFC in the balance of goal-directed vs. habitual control of behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 19 21%
Psychology 18 20%
Engineering 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,828,523
of 23,738,567 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#30,626
of 128,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,707
of 329,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#942
of 3,540 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,738,567 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 128,127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,540 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.