Stimulus conditions that promote habitual control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments in rats examined how training where a stimulus signaled when to respond for reward, conditions that should favour S-R learning, might lead to habitual control of behaviour. Experiment 1 investigated how animals trained with a stimulus preceding lever insertion would impact learning relative to a group that was self-paced and could control lever insertion with a second, distinct response. Rats were then tested for sensitivity to outcome devaluation to distinguish between goal-directed and habitual control. We found that free-operant, self-paced conditions promoted goal-directed control while signaling trials with a stimulus promoted habitual control evidenced as insensitivity to outcome devaluation. Experiment 2 assessed whether the stimulus-outcome association is important for driving habitual responding when training occurs with a traditional discriminative stimulus. A comparison group was trained under free-operant conditions and experienced the same stimulus presented alongside the earned reward. Following devaluation, animals trained under discriminated-operant conditions had reduced goal-directed control, but only after extended training. The free-operant group remained goal-directed, even after extended training, and their performance was not altered by stimulus presentations, suggesting effects of a stimulus-outcome association were unlikely to account for the deficit in the discriminative stimulus group. These results extend understanding of how stimuli present during instrumental training promote the development of habitual control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".