Impaired acquisition of goal-directed action in healthy aging
Open accessAbstract
According to dual-system theories, instrumental learning is supported by dissociable goal-directed and habitual systems. Previous investigations of the dual-system balance in healthy aging have yielded mixed results. To further investigate this issue, we compared performance of young (17-24 years) and older (69-84 years) adults on an instrumental learning task. Following the initial learning phase, the behavioral autonomy of the motivational significance of the instrumental outcome was assessed with an outcome-devaluation test and slips-of-action test. The present study provides evidence for a disrupted dual-system balance in healthy aging, as reflected in reduced outcome-induced conflict during acquisition, as well as in impaired performance during the test stage, during which participants had to flexibly adjust their actions to changes in the current desirability of the behavioral outcome. These findings will be discussed in relation to previous aging studies into habitual and goal-directed control, as well as other cognitive impairments, challenges that older adults may face in everyday life, and to the neurobiological basis of the developmental pattern of goal-directed action across the lifespan.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In laboratory tests, habits were most likely to be performed inadvertently when goal-directed control was taxed by advanced age or performing a secondary task.
“In laboratory tests, habits were most likely to be performed inadvertently when goal-directed control was taxed by, for example, advanced age or performing a secondary task (e.g., de Wit et al. 2014, Ruh et al. 2010).”
From Psychology of Habit. (2016) · cites this paper as de Wit et al. 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 63 · Cited by 41
- Authors
- de Wit, S., van de Vijver, I., & Ridderinkhof, K. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- ORCID
- Ridderinkhof, K. R.
- Venue
- Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
- Published
- 2014-05-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 647-658
- ISSN
- 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-135X
- OpenAlex
- W2044694835
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- healthy aging, goal-directed action, operant conditioning, dual-system theory, habitual behavior, outcome devaluation, behavioral flexibility, older adults, lifespan development
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Analysis of Variance, Conditioning, Operant, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Goals, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, 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
