Premium
Fractionating the all‐or‐nothing definition of goal‐directed and habitual decision‐making
Author(s) -
Schreiner Drew C.,
Renteria Rafael,
Gremel Christina M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of neuroscience research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.72
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1097-4547
pISSN - 0360-4012
DOI - 10.1002/jnr.24545
Subject(s) - adaptive behavior , psychology , cognitive psychology , disease , mechanism (biology) , control (management) , process (computing) , contingency , computer science , neuroscience , medicine , developmental psychology , artificial intelligence , philosophy , linguistics , epistemology , pathology , operating system
Goal‐directed and habitual decision‐making are fundamental processes that support the ongoing adaptive behavior. There is a growing interest in examining their disruption in psychiatric disease, often with a focus on a disease shifting control from one process to the other, usually a shift from goal‐directed to habitual control. However, several different experimental procedures can be used to probe whether decision‐making is under goal‐directed or habitual control, including outcome devaluation and contingency degradation. These different experimental procedures may recruit diverse behavioral and neural processes. Thus, there are potentially many opportunities for these disease phenotypes to manifest as alterations to both goal‐directed and habitual controls. In this review, we highlight the examples of behavioral and neural circuit divergence and similarity, and suggest that interpretation based on behavioral processes recruited during testing may leave more room for goal‐directed and habitual decision‐making to coexist. Furthermore, this may improve our understanding of precisely what the involved neural mechanisms underlying aspects of goal‐directed and habitual behavior are, as well as how disease affects behavior and these circuits.