↓ Skip to main content

Slips of Action and Sequential Decisions: A Cross-Validation Study of Tasks Assessing Habitual and Goal-Directed Action Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Slips of Action and Sequential Decisions: A Cross-Validation Study of Tasks Assessing Habitual and Goal-Directed Action Control
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00234
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zsuzsika Sjoerds, Anja Dietrich, Lorenz Deserno, Sanne de Wit, Arno Villringer, Hans-Jochen Heinze, Florian Schlagenhauf, Annette Horstmann

Abstract

Instrumental learning and decision-making rely on two parallel systems: a goal-directed and a habitual system. In the past decade, several paradigms have been developed to study these systems in animals and humans by means of e.g., overtraining, devaluation procedures and sequential decision-making. These different paradigms are thought to measure the same constructs, but cross-validation has rarely been investigated. In this study we compared two widely used paradigms that assess aspects of goal-directed and habitual behavior. We correlated parameters from a two-step sequential decision-making task that assesses model-based (MB) and model-free (MF) learning with a slips-of-action paradigm that assesses the ability to suppress cue-triggered, learnt responses when the outcome has been devalued and is therefore no longer desirable. MB control during the two-step task showed a very moderately positive correlation with goal-directed devaluation sensitivity, whereas MF control did not show any associations. Interestingly, parameter estimates of MB and goal-directed behavior in the two tasks were positively correlated with higher-order cognitive measures (e.g., visual short-term memory). These cognitive measures seemed to (at least partly) mediate the association between MB control during sequential decision-making and goal-directed behavior after instructed devaluation. This study provides moderate support for a common framework to describe the propensity towards goal-directed behavior as measured with two frequently used tasks. However, we have to caution that the amount of shared variance between the goal-directed and MB system in both tasks was rather low, suggesting that each task does also pick up distinct aspects of goal-directed behavior. Further investigation of the commonalities and differences between the MF and habit systems as measured with these, and other, tasks is needed. Also, a follow-up cross-validation on the neural systems driving these constructs across different paradigms would promote the definition and operationalization of measures of instrumental learning and decision-making in humans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 24%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 25%
Neuroscience 25 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,967,503
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,916
of 3,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,995
of 425,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#35
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 425,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.