Advertisement

Human appetitive Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer: a goal-directed account

  • Justin MahlbergEmail author
  • Tina Seabrooke
  • Gabrielle Weidemann
  • Lee Hogarth
  • Chris J. Mitchell
  • Ahmed A. Moustafa
Review

Abstract

Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) tasks assess the impact of environmental stimuli on instrumental actions. Since their initial translation from animal to human experiments, PIT tasks have provided insight into the mechanisms that underlie reward-based behaviour. This review first examines the main types of PIT tasks used in humans. We then seek to contribute to the current debate as to whether human PIT effects reflect a controlled, goal-directed process, or a more automatic, non-goal-directed mechanism. We argue that the data favour a goal-directed process. The extent to which the major theories of PIT can account for these data is then explored. We discuss a number of associative accounts of PIT as well as dual-process versions of these theories. Ultimately, however, we favour a propositional account, in which human PIT effects are suggested to be driven by both perceived outcome availability and outcome value. In the final section of the review, we present the potential objections to the propositional approach that we anticipate from advocates of associative link theories and our response to them. We also identify areas for future research.

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

References

  1. Alarcón, D. E., & Bonardi, C. (2016). The effect of conditioned inhibition on the specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition,42, 82–94.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alarcón, D. E., Bonardi, C., & Delamater, A. R. (2017). Associative mechanisms involved in specific Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) in human learning tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1342671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allman, M. J., DeLeon, I. G., Cataldo, M. F., Holland, P. C., & Johnson, A. W. (2010). Learning processes affecting human decision making: An assessment of reinforcer-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer following reinforcer devaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,36, 402–408.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017876.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, B. A., Laurent, P. A., & Yantis, S. (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108, 10367–10371.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104047108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asratyan, E. A. (1974). Conditional reflex theory and motivational behavior. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis,34, 15–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, C. J., Shanks, D. R., & Henson, R. N. (2008). A unitary signal-detection model of implicit and explicit memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,12(10), 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bezzina, L., Lee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., & Colagiuri, B. (2016). Extinction and renewal of cue-elicited reward-seeking. Behaviour Research and Therapy,87, 162–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.09.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Campese, V. D., McCue, M., Lázaro-Muñoz, G., LeDoux, J. E., & Cain, C. K. (2013). Development of an aversive Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer task in rat. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,7, 176.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00176.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Cartoni, E., Balleine, B., & Baldassarre, G. (2016). Appetitive Pavlovian-instrumental transfer: A review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,71, 829–848.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartoni, E., Moretta, T., Puglisi-Allegra, S., Cabib, S., & Baldassarre, G. (2015). The relationship between specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer and instrumental reward probability. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chater, N. (2009). Rational models of conditioning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,32, 204–205.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colagiuri, B., & Lovibond, P. F. (2015). How food cues can enhance and inhibit motivation to obtain and consume food. Appetite,84, 79–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Colwill, R. M., & Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Associations between the discriminative stimulus and the reinforcer in instrumental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 155–164.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.14.2.155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colwill, R. M., & Rescorla, R. A. (1990). Evidence for the hierarchical structure of instrumental learning. Animal Learning & Behavior,18, 71–82.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbit, L. H., & Balleine, B. W. (2005). Double dissociation of basolateral and central amygdala lesions on the general and outcome-specific forms of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Journal of Neuroscience,25, 962–970.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4507-04.2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Corbit, L. H., & Balleine, B. W. (2011). The general and outcome-specific forms of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer are differentially mediated by the nucleus accumbens core and shell. Journal of Neuroscience,31, 11786–11794.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2711-11.2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Corbit, L. H., & Janak, P. H. (2007). Ethanol-associated cues produce general Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,31(5), 766–774.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00359.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Corbit, L. H., Janak, P. H., & Balleine, B. W. (2007). General and outcome-specific forms of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer: the effect of shifts in motivational state and inactivation of the ventral tegmental area. European Journal of Neuroscience,26, 3141–3149.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05934.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Corbit, L. H., Muir, J. L., & Balleine, B. W. (2001). The role of the nucleus accumbens in instrumental conditioning: Evidence of a functional dissociation between accumbens core and shell. The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 21, 3251–60. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/9/3251.
  20. De Houwer, J. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learning & Behavior,37, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Wit, S., & Dickinson, A. (2009). Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: A case for animal–human translational models. Psychological Research,73, 463–476.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0230-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. de Wit, S., & Dickinson, A. (2015). Ideomotor mechanisms of goal-directed behavior. In T. S. Braver (Ed.), Motivation and cognitive control (pp. 135–154). Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. de Wit, S., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Fletcher, P. C., & Dickinson, A. (2013). Resolution of outcome-induced response conflict by humans after extended training. Psychological Research,77, 780–793.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0467-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dickinson, A. (1985). Actions and habits: the development of behavioural autonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences,308, 67–78.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1985.0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dickinson, A. (1994). Instrumental conditioning. In N. J. Mackintosh (Ed.), Animal learning and cognition (pp. 45–79). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dickinson, A. (2012). Associative learning and animal cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,367, 2733–2742.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (1988). Discovering functionally independent mental processes: The principle of reversed association. Psychological Review,95(1), 91–101.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.1.91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (2003). What can we infer from double dissociations? Cortex, 39(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70070-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Eder, A. B., & Dignath, D. (2016a). Asymmetrical effects of posttraining outcome revaluation on outcome-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer of control in human adults. Learning and Motivation,54, 12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eder, A. B., & Dignath, D. (2016b). Cue-elicited food seeking is eliminated with aversive outcomes following outcome devaluation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,69, 574–588.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1062527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,27, 229–240.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.27.1.229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Estes, W. K. (1943). Discriminative conditioning. I. A discriminative property of conditioned anticipation. Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 150–155.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2016). Drug addiction: Updating actions to habits to compulsions 10 years on. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 23–50.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garbusow, M., Schad, D. J., Sebold, M., Friedel, E., Bernhardt, N., Koch, S. P., & Heinz, A. (2016). Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer effects in the nucleus accumbens relate to relapse in alcohol dependence. Addiction Biology,21, 719–731.  https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.12243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Geurts, D. E. M., Huys, Q. J. M., den Ouden, H. E. M., & Cools, R. (2013). Serotonin and aversive Pavlovian control of instrumental behavior in humans. Journal of Neuroscience,33, 18932–18939.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2749-13.2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hardy, L., Mitchell, C. J., Seabrooke, T., & Hogarth, L. (2017). Drug cue reactivity involves hierarchical instrumental learning: Evidence from a biconditional Pavlovian to instrumental transfer task. Psychopharmacology (Berl),234, 1977–1984.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heyes, C., & Dickinson, A. (1990). The intentionality of animal action. Mind & Language,5, 87–103.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1990.tb00154.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hogarth, L. (2012). Goal-directed and transfer-cue-elicited drug-seeking are dissociated by pharmacotherapy: Evidence for independent additive controllers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,38, 266–278.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028914.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hogarth, L., Balleine, B. W., Corbit, L. H., & Killcross, S. (2013). Associative learning mechanisms underpinning the transition from recreational drug use to addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1282, 12–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06768.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hogarth, L., & Chase, H. W. (2011). Parallel goal-directed and habitual control of human drug-seeking: Implications for dependence vulnerability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,37, 261–276.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A., & Duka, T. (2010). The associative basis of cue-elicited drug taking in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl),208, 337–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-009-1735-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A., Wright, A., Kouvaraki, M., & Duka, T. (2007). The role of drug expectancy in the control of human drug seeking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,33, 484–496.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.33.4.484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hogarth, L., Lam-Cassettari, C., Pacitti, H., Currah, T., Mahlberg, J., Hartley, L., et al. (2018). Intact goal-directed control in treatment-seekingdrug users indexed by outcome-devaluation and Pavlovian to instrumental transfer: critique of habit theory. European Journal of Neuroscience, 50(3), 2513–2525.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13961.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hogarth, L., Retzler, C., Munafò, M. R., Tran, D. M. D., Troisi, J. R., Rose, A. K., & Field, M. (2014). Extinction of cue-evoked drug-seeking relies on degrading hierarchical instrumental expectancies. Behaviour Research and Therapy,59, 61–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.06.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Hogarth, L., & Troisi, J. R. I. (2015). A hierarchical instrumental decision theory of nicotine dependence. Nature,23, 165–191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13665-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holland, P. C. (2004). Relations between Pavlovian-instrumental transfer and reinforcer devaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,30, 104–117.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.30.2.104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Holmes, N. M., Marchand, A. R., & Coutureau, E. (2010). Pavlovian to instrumental transfer: A neurobehavioral perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,34, 1277–1295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.03.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: on the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action Science: Foundations of an Emerging Discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2017). Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,21, 940–949.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Huys, Q. J. M., Cools, R., Gölzer, M., Friedel, E., Heinz, A., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2011). Disentangling the roles of approach, activation and valence in instrumental and Pavlovian responding. PLoS Computational Biology,7, e1002028.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Jeffs, S., & Duka, T. (2017). Predictive but not emotional value of Pavlovian stimuli leads to pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer. Behavioural Brain Research,321, 214–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.12.022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Kruse, J. M., Overmier, J. B., Konz, W. A., & Rokke, E. (1983). Pavlovian conditioned stimulus effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific. Learning and Motivation,14, 165–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(83)90004-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewis, A. H., Niznikiewicz, M. A., Delamater, A. R., & Delgado, M. R. (2013). Avoidance-based human Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer. European Journal of Neuroscience,38, 3740–3748.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Lovibond, P. F. (1981). Appetitive Pavlovian-instrumental interactions: effects of inter-stimulus interval and baseline reinforcement conditions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B, Comparative and Physiological Psychology,33, 257–269.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lovibond, P. F., & Colagiuri, B. (2013). Facilitation of voluntary goal-directed action by reward cues. Psychological Science,24, 2030–2037.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613484043.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lovibond, P. F., Satkunarajah, M., & Colagiuri, B. (2015). Extinction can reduce the impact of reward cues on reward-seeking behavior. Behavior Therapy,46, 432–438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.03.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lovibond, P. F., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,28, 3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0097-7403.28.1.3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Mahlberg, J., Weidemann, G., Hogarth, L., & Moustafa, A. A. (2019). Cue-elicited craving and human Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer. Addiction Research & Theory.  https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2018.1544625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McLaren, I. P. L., Forrest, C. L. D., McLaren, R. P., Jones, F. W., Aitken, M. R. F., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2014). Associations and propositions: The case for a dual-process account of learning in humans. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory,108, 185–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2013.09.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. McLaren, I. P. L., McAndrew, A., Angerer, K., McLaren, R., Forrest, C., Bowditch, W. A., & Verbruggen, F. (2018). Mackintosh lecture: Association and cognition: Two processes, one system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818766287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,32, 183–198.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostlund, S. B., & Balleine, B. W. (2007). Orbitofrontal cortex mediates outcome encoding in Pavlovian but not instrumental conditioning. Journal of Neuroscience,27(18), 4819–4825.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5443-06.2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Pavlov, I. P. (1932). The reply of a physiologist to psychologists. The Psychological Review,39, 91–297.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prévost, C., Liljeholm, M., Tyszka, J. M., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Neural correlates of specific and general Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer within human amygdalar subregions: A high-resolution fMRI study. The Journal of Neuroscience,32(24), 8383–8390.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6237-11.2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Pritchard, T. L., Weidemann, G., & Hogarth, L. (2017). Negative emotional appraisal selectively disrupts retrieval of expected outcome values required for goal-directed instrumental choice. Cognition and Emotion,32, 843–851.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1359017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Quail, S. L., Morris, R. W., & Balleine, B. W. (2017). Stress associated changes in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer in humans. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,70, 675–685.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1149198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rescorla, R. A. (1990). Evidence for an association between the discriminative stimulus and the response–outcome association in instrumental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,16, 326–334.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.16.4.326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Rescorla, R. A. (1991). Associative relations in instrumental learning: The eighteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B,43, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108401256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rescorla, R. A. (1994a). Control of instrumental performance by Pavlovian and instrumental stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 44–50.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.20.1.44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rescorla, R. A. (1994b). Transfer of instrumental control mediated by a devalued outcome. Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 27–33.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review,74, 713.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2008). The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: Some current issues. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences,363, 3137–3146.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0093.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Rose, A. K., Brown, K., Mackillop, J., Field, M., & Hogarth, L. (2018). Alcohol devaluation has dissociable effects on distinct components of alcohol behaviour. Psychopharmacology (Berl),235, 1233–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-4839-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Seabrooke, T., Hogarth, L., Edmunds, C. E. R., & Mitchell, C. J. (2019). Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition,45, 95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Seabrooke, T., Hogarth, L., & Mitchell, C. J. (2016). The propositional basis of cue-controlled reward seeking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,69, 2452–2470.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1115885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Seabrooke, T., Le Pelley, M. E., Hogarth, L., & Mitchell, C. J. (2017). Evidence of a goal-directed process in human Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition,43, 377–387.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Seabrooke, T., Le Pelley, M. E., Porter, A., & Mitchell, C. J. (2018a). Extinguishing cue-controlled reward choice: Effects of Pavlovian extinction on outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition,44, 280–292.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Seabrooke, T., Wills, A. J., Hogarth, L., & Mitchell, C. J. (2018b). Automaticity and cognitive control: Effects of cognitive load on cue-controlled reward choice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,72(6), 1507–1521.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818797052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin,136, 943–974.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Talmi, D., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2008). Human Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Journal of Neuroscience,28, 360–368.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4028-07.2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Tiffany, S. T., & Conklin, C. A. (2000). A cognitive processing model of alcohol craving and compulsive alcohol use. Addiction,95, S145–S153.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.3.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Trapold, M. A., & Overmier, J. B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental conditioning. In A. A. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), ClassicalConditioning II: Current Theory and Research (1st ed., pp. 427–452). New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  83. Trick, L., Hogarth, L., & Duka, T. (2011). Prediction and uncertainty in human Pavlovian to instrumental transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,37, 757–765.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. van Steenbergen, H., Watson, P., Wiers, R. W., Hommel, B., & de Wit, S. (2017). Dissociable corticostriatal circuits underlie goal-directed versus cue-elicited habitual food seeking after satiation: Evidence from a multimodal MRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience,46, 1815–1827.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Verhoeven, A. A. C., Watson, P., & de Wit, S. (2018). Failing to pay heed to health warnings in a food-associated environment. Appetite,120, 616–626.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Walker, K. C. (1942). The effect of a discriminative stimulus transferred to a previously unassociated response. Journal of Experimental Psychology,31, 312–321.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Watson, P., de Wit, S., Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2012). Motivational mechanisms and outcome expectancies underlying the approach bias toward addictive substances. Frontiers in Psychology,3, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Watson, P., Wiers, R. W., Hommel, B., & de Wit, S. (2014). Working for food you don’t desire. Cues interfere with goal-directed food-seeking. Appetite,79, 139–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Watson, P., Wiers, R. W., Hommel, B., & de Wit, S. (2018). Motivational sensitivity of outcome–response priming: Experimental research and theoretical models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1449-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Watson, P., Wiers, R. W., Hommel, B., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & de Wit, S. (2016). An associative account of how the obesogenic environment biases adolescents’ food choices. Appetite,96, 560–571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Sciences and PsychologyWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  4. 4.MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour, and DevelopmentWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.School of PsychologyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations