↓ Skip to main content

Sign Tracking, but Not Goal Tracking, is Resistant to Outcome Devaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2015
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Sign Tracking, but Not Goal Tracking, is Resistant to Outcome Devaluation
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00468
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara E. Morrison, Michael A. Bamkole, Saleem M. Nicola

Abstract

During Pavlovian conditioning, a conditioned stimulus (CS) may act as a predictor of a reward to be delivered in another location. Individuals vary widely in their propensity to engage with the CS (sign tracking) or with the site of eventual reward (goal tracking). It is often assumed that sign tracking involves the association of the CS with the motivational value of the reward, resulting in the CS acquiring incentive value independent of the outcome. However, experimental evidence for this assumption is lacking. In order to test the hypothesis that sign tracking behavior does not rely on a neural representation of the outcome, we employed a reward devaluation procedure. We trained rats on a classic Pavlovian paradigm in which a lever CS was paired with a sucrose reward, then devalued the reward by pairing sucrose with illness in the absence of the CS. We found that sign tracking behavior was enhanced, rather than diminished, following reward devaluation; thus, sign tracking is clearly independent of a representation of the outcome. In contrast, goal tracking behavior was decreased by reward devaluation. Furthermore, when we divided rats into those with high propensity to engage with the lever (sign trackers) and low propensity to engage with the lever (goal trackers), we found that nearly all of the effects of devaluation could be attributed to the goal trackers. These results show that sign tracking and goal tracking behavior may be the output of different associative structures in the brain, providing insight into the mechanisms by which reward-associated stimuli-such as drug cues-come to exert control over behavior in some individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 138 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 24%
Researcher 25 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 45 32%
Psychology 37 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 31 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 May 2023.
All research outputs
#6,238,835
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,146
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,560
of 395,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#46
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 395,917 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 131 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 64% of its contemporaries.