Literature DB >> 25592370

Suppressing a motivationally-triggered action tendency engages a response control mechanism that prevents future provocation.

Scott M Freeman1, Dominic Alvernaz1, Alexandra Tonnesen1, David Linderman1, Adam R Aron2.   

Abstract

Reward-predicting stimuli can induce maladaptive behavior by provoking action tendencies that conflict with long-term goals. Earlier, we showed that when human participants were permitted to respond for a reward in the presence of a task-irrelevant, reward-predicting stimulus (i.e. goCS+ trials), the CS+ provoked an action tendency to respond compared to when a non-rewarding CS- stimulus was present (i.e. goCS- trials). However, when participants were not permitted to respond, response suppression was recruited to mitigate the action tendency that was triggered by the motivating CS+ stimulus (i.e. on nogoCS+ trials) (Freeman et al., 2014). Here we tested the hypothesis that repeated response suppression over a motivationally-triggered action tendency would reduce subsequent CS+ provocation. We compared groups of participants who had different proportions of nogoCS+ trials, and we measured CS+ provocation on go trials via reaction time. Our results showed that CS+ provocation on go trials was reduced monotonically as the proportion of nogoCS+ trials increased. Further analysis showed that these group differences were best explained by reduced provocation on goCS+ trials that followed nogoCS+ (compared to nogoCS-) trials. Follow-up experiments using a neurophysiological index of motor activity replicated these effects and also suggested that, following nogoCS+ trials, a response suppression mechanism was in place to help prevent subsequent CS+ provocation. Thus, our results show that performing response suppression in the face of a motivating stimulus not only controls responding at that time, but also prevents provocation in the near future.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive control; Conflict adaptation; Motivation; Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25592370      PMCID: PMC4420638          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  47 in total

1.  Human cortical activities during Go/NoGo tasks with opposite motor control paradigms.

Authors:  Kentaro Yamanaka; Toshitaka Kimura; Makoto Miyazaki; Noritaka Kawashima; Daichi Nozaki; Kimitaka Nakazawa; Hideo Yano; Yoshiharu Yamamoto
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-11-29       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control.

Authors:  Ulrich Mayr; Edward Awh; Paul Laurey
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.

Authors:  Birgit Stürmer; Hartmut Leuthold; Eric Soetens; Hannes Schröter; Werner Sommer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task.

Authors:  Tobias Egner; Joy Hirsch
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Urges for food and money spill over into motor system excitability before action is taken.

Authors:  Nitin Gupta; Adam R Aron
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 3.386

Review 6.  Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control.

Authors:  Tobias Egner
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Opposing effects of appetitive and aversive cues on go/no-go behavior and motor excitability.

Authors:  Yu-Chin Chiu; Roshan Cools; Adam R Aron
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Evidence for two concurrent inhibitory mechanisms during response preparation.

Authors:  Julie Duque; David Lew; Riccardo Mazzocchio; Etienne Olivier; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  A proactive mechanism for selective suppression of response tendencies.

Authors:  Weidong Cai; Caitlin L Oldenkamp; Adam R Aron
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Hot or not: response inhibition reduces the hedonic value and motivational incentive of sexual stimuli.

Authors:  Anne E Ferrey; Alexandra Frischen; Mark J Fenske
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-12-26
View more
  6 in total

1.  Less approach, more avoidance: Response inhibition has motivational consequences for sexual stimuli that reflect changes in affective value not a lingering global brake on behavior.

Authors:  Rachel L Driscoll; Keelia Quinn de Launay; Mark J Fenske
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

2.  Withholding a Reward-driven Action: Studies of the Rise and Fall of Motor Activation and the Effect of Cognitive Depletion.

Authors:  Scott M Freeman; Adam R Aron
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Dopamine Selectively Modulates the Outcome of Learning Unnatural Action-Valence Associations.

Authors:  Nelleke C Van Wouwe; Daniel O Claassen; Joseph S Neimat; Kristen E Kanoff; Scott A Wylie
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Easy to learn, hard to suppress: The impact of learned stimulus-outcome associations on subsequent action control.

Authors:  N C van Wouwe; W P M van den Wildenberg; K R Ridderinkhof; D O Claassen; J S Neimat; S A Wylie
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2015-11-08       Impact factor: 2.310

5.  Age-dependent Pavlovian biases influence motor decision-making.

Authors:  Xiuli Chen; Robb B Rutledge; Harriet R Brown; Raymond J Dolan; Sven Bestmann; Joseph M Galea
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 4.475

6.  Development of a Classical Conditioning Task for Humans Examining Phasic Heart Rate Responses to Signaled Appetitive Stimuli: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Alessandra Sayão; Heloisa Alves; Emi Furukawa; Thomas Schultz Wenk; Mauricio Cagy; Samantha Gutierrez-Arango; Gail Tripp; Egas Caparelli-Dáquer
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.558

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.