How your brain might be secretly thwarting your New Year's resolutions

February 11, 2016
Credit: Human Brain Project

The human brain is wired to pay attention to previously pleasing things—a finding that could help explain why it's hard to break bad habits or stick to New Year's resolutions.

In the new issue of Current Biology, Johns Hopkins University neuroscientists demonstrate for the first time that when people see something associated with a past reward, their brain flushes with dopamine—even if they aren't expecting a reward and even if they don't realize they're paying it any attention. The results suggest we don't have as much self-control as we might think.

"We don't have complete control over what we pay attention to," said senior author Susan M. Courtney, a professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. "We don't realize our past experience biases our attention to certain things."

This could be why it's so hard for people to break the cycle of addiction and why dieters keep thinking about fattening food when they're trying to eat better.

"I could choose healthy food or unhealthy food, but my attention keeps being drawn to fettuccini Alfredo," Courtney said. "What we tend to look at, think about and pay attention to is whatever we've done in the past that was rewarded."

For their study, the researchers asked 20 participants to find red and green objects on a computer screen filled with different colored objects. Participants got $1.50 for finding red objects and 25 cents for finding green ones. The next day, while brain scans (, or PET scans) were conducted, researchers asked participants to find certain shapes on the screen. Color no longer mattered and there was no reward involved. But when a red object appeared, participants automatically focused on it and a particular part of their brain involved in attention filled with dopamine, a brain chemical proven to be released when we receive rewards.

People in the study found the shapes they were looking for; they were just slower doing it. The previously rewarded "red" distracted them.

"What's surprising here is people are not getting rewarded and not expecting a reward," Courtney said. "There's something about past reward association that's still causing a dopamine release. That stimulus has become incorporated into the reward system."

Some of the test subjects were more distracted by the previously rewarded red than others. Those who were most distracted had the most elevated dopamine levels while those who were better able to focus on the task at hand appeared to have suppressed any release of dopamine.

Generally speaking, distractions tend to be bigger for people prone to addiction and smaller for people who are successful abstainers and people who are depressed and not caring about rewards, Courtney said.

The findings suggest there could be a way to pharmaceutically curb these neurochemical distractions—a potential benefit for addicts, dieters and those with other problem behaviors.

Courtney's co-authors are postdoctoral fellow Brian A. Anderson; School of Medicine assistant professor Hiroto Kuwabara; School of Medicine professor Dean F. Wong; former research assistant Emily G. Gean; associate professor of radiology Arman Rahmin; School of Medicine assistant professor James R. Brasic; research and clinical fellow Nobel George; senior clinical research fellow Boris Frolov and Steven Yantis, a professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences who died of cancer in 2014.

When Yantis died, Courtney and students in the Yantis lab felt strongly that his work had to continue. Courtney, who Yantis recruited to Johns Hopkins, took on his research program and "adopted" his students into her lab. Over the past year, their combined teams have worked to finish Yantis' final projects and launch new ones that combine his ideas with Courtney's. This paper's lead author, Brian Anderson, was a graduate student in the Yantis lab and now works for Courtney as a postdoctoral researcher.

"This is the kind of challenge that defined the career of Steven Yantis," said Anderson, who stayed at Johns Hopkins for an extra year to finish this study and related projects. "A brilliant experimentalist with interests in cognitive neuroscience, Steve had a real knack for elegantly isolating a cognitive process in the . This project is a reflection of who he was as a scientist and the impact that had on me through his mentorship. That legacy really motivated all of us to see this project through."

Explore further: Your attention please: 'Rewarding' objects can't be ignored

Related Stories

Is dopamine to blame for our addictions?

December 3, 2015

Most researchers agree that the key difference between human brains and those of other animals is the size and complexity of our cerebral cortex, the brain's outer layer of neural tissue. We therefore tend to focus our attention ...

Researchers uncover how dopamine transports within the brain

January 25, 2016

Researchers at University of Florida Health have discovered the mechanics of how dopamine transports into and out of brain cells, a finding that could someday lead to more effective treatment of drug addictions and neurological ...

Recommended for you

A turbo engine for tracing neurons

April 27, 2017

Putting a turbo engine into an old car gives it an entirely new life—suddenly it can go further, faster. That same idea is now being applied to neuroscience, with a software wrapper that can be used on existing neuron tracing ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Feb 11, 2016
Although it may seem like subconscious processes are behaving autonomously, this is not entirely true.

Firstly, those things that are associated with a strong emotional response are highlighted in our cognitive landscape (any of the senses as well as recollections).

Secondly, we decide how strong the response should be by our attitude and behaviour with respect to the cognitive item. This can occur at the time we first encounter it, subsequently encounter it or recall it (reconsolidation).

At each point we have the opportunity to modify the emotional response to that item. For pleasurable items we need to imagine some aspect of it that brings displeasure and reinforce that at every opportunity.

Although 'in the moment' the subconscious seems to behave autonomously, it is just a dumb respondent mechanism we have, wittingly or unwittingly, programmed ourselves (think behaviourism and ancient rat-like subconscious).
not rated yet Feb 12, 2016
The paper (paywall) "The Role of Dopamine in Value-Based Attentional Orienting" Brian A. Anderson et al can be found here http://www.scienc...16000439

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.