Dataset Information

The action dynamics of approach-avoidance conflict during decision-making.

ABSTRACT: Approach-avoidance conflict is observed in the competing motivations towards the benefits and away from the costs of a decision. The current study investigates the action dynamics of response motion during such conflicts in an attempt to characterise their dynamic resolution. An approach-avoidance conflict was generated by varying the appetitive consequences of a decision (i.e., point rewards and shorter participation time) in the presence of simultaneous aversive consequences (i.e., shock probability). Across two experiments, approach-avoidance conflict differentially affected response trajectories. Approach trajectories were less complex than avoidance trajectories and, as approach and avoidance motivations neared equipotentiality, response trajectories were more deflected from the shortest route to the eventual choice. Consistency in the location of approach and avoidance response options reduced variability in performance enabling more sensitive estimates of dynamic conflict. The time course of competing influences on response trajectories including trial-to-trial effects and conflict between approach and avoidance were estimated using regression analyses. We discuss these findings in terms of a dynamic theory of approach-avoidance that we hope will lead to insights of practical relevance in the field of maladaptive avoidance.

SUBMITTER: Garcia-Guerrero S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9773158 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The action dynamics of approach-avoidance conflict during decision-making.

Garcia-Guerrero Santiago S O'Hora Denis D Zgonnikov Arkady A Scherbaum Stefan S

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) 20220409 1

Approach-avoidance conflict is observed in the competing motivations towards the benefits and away from the costs of a decision. The current study investigates the action dynamics of response motion during such conflicts in an attempt to characterise their dynamic resolution. An approach-avoidance conflict was generated by varying the appetitive consequences of a decision (i.e., point rewards and shorter participation time) in the presence of simultaneous aversive consequences (i.e., shock proba ...[more]

PMID: 35236183

Similar Datasets

Project description:Animal approach-avoidance conflict paradigms have been used extensively to operationalize anxiety, quantify the effects of anxiolytic agents, and probe the neural basis of fear and anxiety. Results from human neuroimaging studies support that a frontal-striatal-amygdala neural circuitry is important for approach-avoidance learning. However, the neural basis of decision-making is much less clear in this context. Thus, we combined a recently developed human approach-avoidance paradigm with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify neural substrates underlying approach-avoidance conflict decision-making. Fifteen healthy adults completed the approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) paradigm during fMRI. Analyses of variance were used to compare conflict to nonconflict (avoid-threat and approach-reward) conditions and to compare level of reward points offered during the decision phase. Trial-by-trial amplitude modulation analyses were used to delineate brain areas underlying decision-making in the context of approach/avoidance behavior. Conflict trials as compared to the nonconflict trials elicited greater activation within bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and caudate, as well as right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC). Right caudate and lateral PFC activation was modulated by level of reward offered. Individuals who showed greater caudate activation exhibited less approach behavior. On a trial-by-trial basis, greater right lateral PFC activation related to less approach behavior. Taken together, results suggest that the degree of activation within prefrontal-striatal-insula circuitry determines the degree of approach versus avoidance decision-making. Moreover, the degree of caudate and lateral PFC activation related to individual differences in approach-avoidance decision-making. Therefore, the approach-avoidance conflict paradigm is ideally suited to probe anxiety-related processing differences during approach-avoidance decision-making.

Project description:Many real-world situations require navigating decisions for both reward and threat. While there has been significant progress in understanding mechanisms of decision-making and mediating neurocircuitry separately for reward and threat, there is limited understanding of situations where reward and threat contingencies compete to create approach-avoidance conflict (AAC). Here, we leverage computational learning models, independent component analysis (ICA), and multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) approaches to understand decision-making during a novel task that embeds concurrent reward and threat learning and manipulates congruency between reward and threat probabilities. Computational modeling supported a modified reinforcement learning model where participants integrated reward and threat value into a combined total value according to an individually varying policy parameter, which was highly predictive of decisions to approach reward vs avoid threat during trials where the highest reward option was also the highest threat option (i.e., approach-avoidance conflict). ICA analyses demonstrated unique roles for salience, frontoparietal, medial prefrontal, and inferior frontal networks in differential encoding of reward vs threat prediction error and value signals. The left frontoparietal network uniquely encoded degree of conflict between reward and threat value at the time of choice. MVPA demonstrated that delivery of reward and threat could accurately be decoded within salience and inferior frontal networks, respectively, and that decisions to approach reward vs avoid threat were predicted by the relative degree to which these reward vs threat representations were active at the time of choice. This latter result suggests that navigating AAC decisions involves generating mental representations for possible decision outcomes, and relative activation of these representations may bias subsequent decision-making towards approaching reward or avoiding threat accordingly.

Project description:Neural and behavioral mechanisms during approach-avoidance conflict decision-making are relevant across various psychiatric disorders, particularly anxiety disorders. Studies using approach-avoidance conflict paradigms in healthy adults have identified preliminary neural mechanisms, but findings must be replicated and demonstrated as reliable before further application. This study sought to replicate previous findings and examine test-retest reliability of behavioral (approach behavior, reaction time) and neural (regions of interest [ROIs]) responses during an approach-avoidance conflict task conducted during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Thirty healthy adults completed an approach-avoidance conflict task during fMRI on two occasions (mean interval: 17 days; range: 11-32). Effects of task condition during three task phases (decision-making, affective outcome and monetary reward) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated across time points. Results replicated that approach behavior was modulated by conflict during decision-making. ROI activations were replicated such that dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) was modulated by conflict during decision-making, and dACC, striatum, and anterior insula were modulated by valence during affective outcomes (p's <.0083). Approach behavior during conflict demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs ≥.77). Activation of dACC during conflict decision-making and anterior insula during negative outcomes demonstrated fair reliability (ICCs = .51 and .54), and dACC and striatum activation demonstrated good reliability during negative outcomes (ICCs = .63 and .69). Two additional ROIs (amygdala, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) showed good reliability during negative outcomes (ICCs ≥.60). These results characterize several specific behavioral and neuroimaging responses that are replicable and sufficiently reliable during approach-avoidance conflict decision-making to support future utility.

Project description:BackgroundImbalances in approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) decision-making (e.g., sacrificing rewards to avoid negative outcomes) are considered central to multiple psychiatric disorders. We used computational modelling to examine 2 factors that are often not distinguished in descriptive analyses of AAC: decision uncertainty and sensitivity to negative outcomes versus rewards (emotional conflict).MethodsA previously validated AAC task was completed by 478 participants, including healthy controls (n = 59), people with substance use disorders (n = 159) and people with depression and/or anxiety disorders who did not have substance use disorders (n = 260). Using an active inference model, we estimated individual-level values for a model parameter that reflected decision uncertainty and another that reflected emotional conflict. We also repeated analyses in a subsample (59 healthy controls, 161 people with depression and/or anxiety disorders, 56 people with substance use disorders) that was propensity-matched for age and general intelligence.ResultsThe model showed high accuracy (72%). As further validation, parameters correlated with reaction times and self-reported task motivations in expected directions. The emotional conflict parameter further correlated with self-reported anxiety during the task (r = 0.32, p < 0.001), and the decision uncertainty parameter correlated with self-reported difficulty making decisions (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). Compared to healthy controls, people with depression and/or anxiety disorders and people with substance use disorders showed higher decision uncertainty in the propensity-matched sample (t = 2.16, p = 0.03, and t = 2.88, p = 0.005, respectively), with analogous results in the full sample; people with substance use disorders also showed lower emotional conflict in the full sample (t = 3.17, p = 0.002).LimitationsThis study was limited by heterogeneity of the clinical sample and an inability to examine learning.ConclusionThese results suggest that reduced confidence in how to act, rather than increased emotional conflict, may explain maladaptive approach-avoidance behaviours in people with psychiatric disorders.

Project description:BackgroundDecision-making under approach-avoidance conflict (AAC; e.g., sacrificing quality of life to avoid feared outcomes) may be affected in multiple psychiatric disorders. Recently, we used a computational (active inference) model to characterize information processing differences during AAC in individuals with depression, anxiety and/or substance use disorders. Individuals with psychiatric disorders exhibited increased decision uncertainty (DU) and reduced sensitivity to unpleasant stimuli. This preregistered study aimed to determine the replicability of this processing dysfunction.MethodsA new sample of participants completed the AAC task. Individual-level computational parameter estimates, reflecting decision uncertainty and sensitivity to unpleasant stimuli ("emotion conflict"; EC), were obtained and compared between groups. Subsequent analyses combining the prior and current samples allowed assessment of narrower disorder categories.ResultsThe sample in the present study included 480 participants: 97 healthy controls, 175 individuals with substance use disorders and 208 individuals with depression and/or anxiety disorders. Individuals with substance use disorders showed higher DU and lower EC values than healthy controls. The EC values were lower in females, but not males, with depression and/or anxiety disorders than in healthy controls. However, the previously observed difference in DU between participants with depression and/or anxiety disorders and healthy controls did not replicate. Analyses of specific disorders in the combined samples indicated that effects were common across different substance use disorders and affective disorders.LimitationsThere were differences, although with small effect size, in age and baseline intellectual functioning between the previous and current sample, which may have affected replication of DU differences in participants with depression and/or anxiety disorders.ConclusionThe now robust evidence base for these clinical group differences motivates specific questions that should be addressed in future research: can DU and EC become behavioural treatment targets, and can we identify neural substrates of DU and EC that could be used to measure severity of dysfunction or as neuromodulatory treatment targets?

Dataset Information

The action dynamics of approach-avoidance conflict during decision-making.

Publications

The action dynamics of approach-avoidance conflict during decision-making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets