Behavioural evidence for parallel outcome-sensitive and outcome-insensitive Pavlovian learning systems in humans
There is a dichotomy in instrumental conditioning between goal-directed actions and habits that are distinguishable on the basis of their relative sensitivity to changes in outcome value. It is less clear whether a similar distinction applies in Pavlovian conditioning, where responses have been found to be predominantly outcome-sensitive. To test for both devaluation-insensitive and devaluation-sensitive Pavlovian conditioning in humans, we conducted four experiments combining Pavlovian conditioning and outcome-devaluation procedures while measuring multiple conditioned responses. Our results suggest that Pavlovian conditioning involves two distinct types of learning: one that learns the current value of the outcome, which is sensitive to devaluation, and one that learns about the spatial localization of the outcome, which is insensitive to devaluation. Our findings have implications for the mechanistic understanding of Pavlovian conditioning and provide a more nuanced understanding of Pavlovian mechanisms that might contribute to a number of psychiatric disorders.
Additional Information© 2019 Springer Nature Publishing AG. Received 20 March 2018; Accepted 21 December 2018; Published 25 February 2019. Code availability: Code used to generate the figures and the results of the four studies reported in this manuscript is available through the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/rve2p. Data availability: Data from the four studies reported in this manuscript are available through the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/rve2p. This work was supported by a NIDA-NIH R01 grant (1R01DA040011-01A1) to J.P.O. and W.M.P. and by an Early Postdoctoral Mobility fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation (P2GEP1162079) to E.R.P. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors thank O. D. Perez and V. Sennwald for insightful comments on this manuscript. Author Contributions: E.R.P., W.M.P., C.S.K. and J.P.O. designed the experiments. E.R.P. and C.S.K. collected and analysed the data. E.R.P., W.M.P., C.S.K. and J.P.O. wrote the paper. All authors discussed the results and implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages. The authors declare no competing interests.
Accepted Version - nihms-1517355.pdf
Supplemental Material - 41562_2018_527_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Supplemental Material - 41562_2018_527_MOESM2_ESM.pdf