PreprintCited by 74Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and InterventionsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Determining the effects of training duration on the behavioral expression of habitual control in humans: a multilaboratory investigation

Open access
Pool, Eva R., Gera, Rani, Fransen, Aniek, Perez, Omar D., Cremer, Anna, Aleksic, Mladena, Tanwisuth, Sandy, Quail, Stephanie +8 more·2022·Learning & Memory

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

It has been suggested that there are two distinct and parallel mechanisms for controlling instrumental behavior in mammals: goal-directed actions and habits. To gain an understanding of how these two systems interact to control behavior, it is essential to characterize the mechanisms by which the balance between these systems is influenced by experience. Studies in rodents have shown that the amount of training governs the relative expression of these two systems: Behavior is goal-directed following moderate training, but the more extensively an instrumental action is trained, the more it becomes habitual. It is less clear whether humans exhibit similar training effects on the expression of goal-directed and habitual behavior, as human studies have reported contradictory findings. To tackle these contradictory findings, we formed a consortium, where four laboratories undertook a preregistered experimental induction of habits by manipulating the amount of training. There was no statistical evidence for a main effect of the amount of training on the formation and expression of habits. However, exploratory analyses suggest a moderating effect of the affective component of stress on the impact of training over habit expression. Participants who were lower in affective stress appeared to be initially goal-directed, but became habitual with increased training, whereas participants who were high in affective stress were already habitual even after moderate training, thereby manifesting insensitivity to overtraining effects. Our findings highlight the importance of the role of moderating variables such as individual differences in stress and anxiety when studying the experimental induction of habits in humans.

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 · 10.1101/lm.053413.121

Cites

74 of 74 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: 4

  1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. 2011. Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  2. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company, New York.
  3. Spielberger CD. 2013. Anxiety: current trends in theory and research. Academic Press, New York.
  4. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. 1983. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pool, E. R., Gera, R., Fransen, A., Perez, O. D., Cremer, A., Aleksic, M., Tanwisuth, S., Quail, S., Ceceli, A. O., Manfredi, D. A., Nave, G., Tricomi, E., Balleine, B., Schonberg, T., Schwabe, L., & O'Doherty, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Universidad de Santiago de Chile (CL)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2021-12-15
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
16-28
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W4226353136
Cited by
74
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2018: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Early Postdoctoral Mobility
  • Swiss National Science Foundation (P2GEP1162079)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (GNT1079561)
  • Landesforschungsförderung Hamburg (FV38)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
habit formation, goal-directed behavior, operant conditioning, training duration, affective stress, individual differences, anxiety
MeSH terms
Animals, Conditioning, Operant, Goals, Habits, Humans, Motivation

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