Sign-tracking and goal-tracking in humans: Utilising eye-tracking in clinical and non-clinical populations

Larisa-Maria Dinu; Alexandra-Livia Georgescu; Samriddhi  Singh; Nicola Byrom; Paul G Overton; Bryan Singer; Eleanor Dommett

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114846

Sign-tracking and goal-tracking in humans: Utilising eye-tracking in clinical and non-clinical populations

Larisa-Maria Dinu^*, Alexandra-Livia Georgescu, Samriddhi Singh, Nicola Byrom, Paul G Overton, Bryan Singer, Eleanor Dommett

^*Corresponding author for this work

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

140 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: In Pavlovian conditioning, learned behaviour varies according to the perceived value of environmental cues. For goal-trackers (GT), the cue merely predicts a reward, whilst for sign-trackers (ST), the cue holds incentive value. The sign-tracking/goal-tracking model is well-validated in animals, but translational work is lacking. Despite the model's relevance to several conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we are unaware of any studies that have examined the model in clinical populations. Methods: The current study used an eye-tracking Pavlovian conditioning paradigm to identify ST and GT in non-clinical (N = 54) and ADHD (N = 57) participants. Eye movements were recorded whilst performing the task. Dwell time was measured for two areas of interest: sign (i.e., cue) and goal (i.e., reward), and an eye-gaze index (EGI) was computed based on the dwell time sign-to-goal ratio. Higher EGI values indicate sign-tracking behaviour. ST and GT were determined using median and tertiary split approaches in both samples. Results: Despite greater propensity for sign-tracking in those with ADHD, there was no significant difference between groups. The oculomotor conditioned response was reward-specific (CS+) and present, at least partly, from the start of the task indicating dispositional and learned components. There were no differences in externalising behaviours between ST and GT for either sample. Conclusions: Sign-tracking is associated with CS+ trials only. There may be both dispositional and learned components to sign-tracking, potentially more common in those with ADHD. This holds translational potential for understanding individual differences in reward-learning.

Original language	English
Article number	114846
Journal	Behavioural brain research
Volume	461
Issue number	114846
Early online date	9 Jan 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114846
Publication status	Published - 12 Mar 2024

Keywords

sign-tracking
goal-tracking
eye-tracking
externalising behaviour
ADHD

Access to Document

10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114846Licence: CC BY

Sign-tracking and goal-tracking_DINU_2024_GOLD VoR (CC BY)Final published version, 2.47 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{5f892e686a3349a888dc94dd4835d18b,

title = "Sign-tracking and goal-tracking in humans: Utilising eye-tracking in clinical and non-clinical populations",

abstract = "Background: In Pavlovian conditioning, learned behaviour varies according to the perceived value of environmental cues. For goal-trackers (GT), the cue merely predicts a reward, whilst for sign-trackers (ST), the cue holds incentive value. The sign-tracking/goal-tracking model is well-validated in animals, but translational work is lacking. Despite the model's relevance to several conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we are unaware of any studies that have examined the model in clinical populations. Methods: The current study used an eye-tracking Pavlovian conditioning paradigm to identify ST and GT in non-clinical (N = 54) and ADHD (N = 57) participants. Eye movements were recorded whilst performing the task. Dwell time was measured for two areas of interest: sign (i.e., cue) and goal (i.e., reward), and an eye-gaze index (EGI) was computed based on the dwell time sign-to-goal ratio. Higher EGI values indicate sign-tracking behaviour. ST and GT were determined using median and tertiary split approaches in both samples. Results: Despite greater propensity for sign-tracking in those with ADHD, there was no significant difference between groups. The oculomotor conditioned response was reward-specific (CS+) and present, at least partly, from the start of the task indicating dispositional and learned components. There were no differences in externalising behaviours between ST and GT for either sample. Conclusions: Sign-tracking is associated with CS+ trials only. There may be both dispositional and learned components to sign-tracking, potentially more common in those with ADHD. This holds translational potential for understanding individual differences in reward-learning.",

keywords = "sign-tracking, goal-tracking, eye-tracking, externalising behaviour, ADHD",

author = "Larisa-Maria Dinu and Alexandra-Livia Georgescu and Samriddhi Singh and Nicola Byrom and Overton, {Paul G} and Bryan Singer and Eleanor Dommett",

note = "Funding Information: This research was funded by The Rosetrees Trust , grant number M875 . Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2024 The Authors",

year = "2024",

month = mar,

day = "12",

doi = "10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114846",

language = "English",

volume = "461",

journal = "Behavioural brain research",

issn = "0166-4328",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "114846",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sign-tracking and goal-tracking in humans: Utilising eye-tracking in clinical and non-clinical populations

AU - Dinu, Larisa-Maria

AU - Georgescu, Alexandra-Livia

AU - Singh, Samriddhi

AU - Byrom, Nicola

AU - Overton, Paul G

AU - Singer, Bryan

AU - Dommett, Eleanor

PY - 2024/3/12

Y1 - 2024/3/12

N2 - Background: In Pavlovian conditioning, learned behaviour varies according to the perceived value of environmental cues. For goal-trackers (GT), the cue merely predicts a reward, whilst for sign-trackers (ST), the cue holds incentive value. The sign-tracking/goal-tracking model is well-validated in animals, but translational work is lacking. Despite the model's relevance to several conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we are unaware of any studies that have examined the model in clinical populations. Methods: The current study used an eye-tracking Pavlovian conditioning paradigm to identify ST and GT in non-clinical (N = 54) and ADHD (N = 57) participants. Eye movements were recorded whilst performing the task. Dwell time was measured for two areas of interest: sign (i.e., cue) and goal (i.e., reward), and an eye-gaze index (EGI) was computed based on the dwell time sign-to-goal ratio. Higher EGI values indicate sign-tracking behaviour. ST and GT were determined using median and tertiary split approaches in both samples. Results: Despite greater propensity for sign-tracking in those with ADHD, there was no significant difference between groups. The oculomotor conditioned response was reward-specific (CS+) and present, at least partly, from the start of the task indicating dispositional and learned components. There were no differences in externalising behaviours between ST and GT for either sample. Conclusions: Sign-tracking is associated with CS+ trials only. There may be both dispositional and learned components to sign-tracking, potentially more common in those with ADHD. This holds translational potential for understanding individual differences in reward-learning.

AB - Background: In Pavlovian conditioning, learned behaviour varies according to the perceived value of environmental cues. For goal-trackers (GT), the cue merely predicts a reward, whilst for sign-trackers (ST), the cue holds incentive value. The sign-tracking/goal-tracking model is well-validated in animals, but translational work is lacking. Despite the model's relevance to several conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we are unaware of any studies that have examined the model in clinical populations. Methods: The current study used an eye-tracking Pavlovian conditioning paradigm to identify ST and GT in non-clinical (N = 54) and ADHD (N = 57) participants. Eye movements were recorded whilst performing the task. Dwell time was measured for two areas of interest: sign (i.e., cue) and goal (i.e., reward), and an eye-gaze index (EGI) was computed based on the dwell time sign-to-goal ratio. Higher EGI values indicate sign-tracking behaviour. ST and GT were determined using median and tertiary split approaches in both samples. Results: Despite greater propensity for sign-tracking in those with ADHD, there was no significant difference between groups. The oculomotor conditioned response was reward-specific (CS+) and present, at least partly, from the start of the task indicating dispositional and learned components. There were no differences in externalising behaviours between ST and GT for either sample. Conclusions: Sign-tracking is associated with CS+ trials only. There may be both dispositional and learned components to sign-tracking, potentially more common in those with ADHD. This holds translational potential for understanding individual differences in reward-learning.

KW - sign-tracking

KW - goal-tracking

KW - eye-tracking

KW - externalising behaviour

KW - ADHD

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85182444355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114846

DO - 10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114846

M3 - Article

SN - 0166-4328

VL - 461

JO - Behavioural brain research

JF - Behavioural brain research

IS - 114846

M1 - 114846

ER -

Sign-tracking and goal-tracking in humans: Utilising eye-tracking in clinical and non-clinical populations

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this