Individual differences in working memory capacity and cue-guided behavior in humans

Sara Garofalo,Simone Battaglia,Giuseppe Di Pellegrino

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43860-w

Sara Garofalo, Simone Battaglia + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43860-w

Copy DOI

Journal: Scientific Reports	Publication Date: May 13, 2019
Citations: 26	License type: open-access

Affiliation: University of Bologna

Abstract

Information gathered via Pavlovian and Instrumental learning can be integrated to guide behavior, in a phenomenon experimentally known as Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT). In particular, in appetitive PIT, a reward-associated cue is able to enhance the instrumental response previously associated with the same (outcome-specific PIT), or a similar (general PIT), reward. The PIT effect is increasingly investigated for its numerous implications in clinical contexts as well as daily life situations. Nevertheless, the precise mechanism behind it is not yet clear. The relation between the PIT effect and high-level cognitive abilities - like working memory - is still unknown, but potentially relevant to unveil its functioning. The present study aims to examine the precise relationship between individual differences in working memory and the two forms of PIT effect, namely outcome-specific and general. For this purpose, 100 participants underwent a classical PIT paradigm. Results showed a relationship between individual working memory and outcome-specific PIT, but not general PIT. Importantly, the role of working memory was not related to the acquisition of the learning contingencies, but rather linked to an imbalance between congruent and incongruent choices. The results are discussed in terms of the adaptive and maladaptive implications for human behavior.

Highlights

In daily life, we learn which actions and which environmental circumstances can lead us to achieve a goal
In general Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) the stimulus invigorates instrumental responses paired with motivationally similar reinforcers which is detached by the specific sensory properties of the outcome[2,3]
These results indicate a preference for both reward-paired responses (R+1 and R+2) as compared to the unrewarded response (R−), indicating successful instrumental learning

Summary

Introduction

We learn which actions and which environmental circumstances can lead us to achieve a goal. Instrumental responses can be controlled by either an R-O association (e.g., pressing the button is rewarded with chocolate), or by an O-R association (e.g., I want chocolate, so I press the button)[5,6] It is acknowledged in the literature that the presentation of a Pavlovian stimulus can activate both a general motivational representation of the potential reward value (i.e., food craving), and a representation of the specific sensory features of the precise outcome at stake (e.g., dark chocolate)[7]. A Pavlovian stimulus associated with dark chocolate triggers responses associated with any kind of food Such interaction between instrumental and Pavlovian learning systems determines a cue-guided behaviour, which can present both adaptive and maladaptive implications. The precise mechanism behind this effect is not yet clear and whether the influence that a Pavlovian stimulus can exert on instrumental choices can be attributed to more strategic cognitive components, or to more automatic determinants, is still hotly debated[12,20,21,22]

Methods

Results

Conclusion