Cited by 211Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationBehavioral Health and Interventions

Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation

Open access
Hardwick, Robert M., Forrence, Alexander D., Krakauer, John W., Haith, Adrian M.·2019·Nature Human Behaviour

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Habits are commonly conceptualized as learned associations whereby a stimulus triggers an associated response 1-3. We propose that habits may be better understood as a process whereby a stimulus triggers only the preparation of a response, without necessarily triggering its initiation. Critically, this would allow a habit to exist without ever being overtly expressed, if the prepared habitual response is replaced by a goal-directed alternative before it can be initiated. Consistent with this hypothesis, we show that limiting the time available for response preparation 4,5 can unmask latent habits. Participants practiced a visuomotor association for 4 days, after which the association was remapped. Participants easily learned the new association but habitually expressed the original association when forced to respond rapidly (~300-600 ms). More extensive practice reduced the latency at which habitual responses were prepared, in turn increasing the likelihood of their being expressed. The time-course of habit expression was captured by a computational model in which habitual responses are automatically prepared at short latency but subsequently replaced by goal-directed responses. Our results illustrate robust habit formation in humans and show that practice affects habitual behaviour in two distinct ways: by promoting habit formation and by modulating the likelihood of habit expression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-019-0725-0

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Dickinson, A. Actions and habits: the development of behavioural autonomy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 308, 67-78 (1985).
  2. de Wit, S. et al. Shifting the balance between goals and habits: Five failures in experimental habit induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147, 1043-1065 (2018).
  3. Wong, A. L. & Haith, A. M. Motor planning flexibly optimizes performance under uncertainty about task goals. Nature Communications 8, 14624 (2017).
  4. Otto, A. R. & Daw, N. The Opportunity Cost of Time Modulates Cognitive Effort. bioRxiv 201863 (2017). doi:10.1101/201863 · DOI
  5. Shmuelof, L., Krakauer, J. W. & Mazzoni, P. How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. Journal of Neurophysiology 108, 578-594 (2012).
  6. Haith, A. M. & Krakauer, J. W. The multiple effects of practice: Skill, habit and reduced cognitive load. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences In Press, (2018).
  7. Moors, A. & De Hower, J. Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. Pschological Bulletin 132, 297-326 (2006).
  8. Wu, T., Kansaku, K. & Hallett, M. How Self-Initiated Memorized Movements Become Automatic: A Functional MRI Study. Journal of Neurophysiology 91, 1690-1698 (2004).
  9. Hardwick, R. M., Rottschy, C., Miall, R. C. & Eickhoff, S. B. A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. NeuroImage 67, 283-297 (2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hardwick, R. M., Forrence, A. D., Krakauer, J. W., & Haith, A. M.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Hardwick, Robert M.
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2019-09-30
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
1252-1262
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2976496960
Cited by
211
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
12.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1358756)
  • European Commission (702784)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
habit formation, goal-directed behavior, response latency, remapping, practice effects, time pressure
MeSH terms
Adult, Association Learning, Female, Goals, Habits, Humans, Male, Motivation, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Time Factors, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review