Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation


Habits are commonly conceptualized as learned associations whereby a stimulus triggers an associated response1,2,3. We propose that habits may be better understood as a process whereby a stimulus triggers only the preparation of a response, without necessarily triggering its initiation. Critically, this would allow a habit to exist without ever being overtly expressed, if the prepared habitual response is replaced by a goal-directed alternative before it can be initiated. Consistent with this hypothesis, we show that limiting the time available for response preparation4,5 can unmask latent habits. Participants practiced a visuomotor association for 4 days, after which the association was remapped. Participants easily learned the new association but habitually expressed the original association when forced to respond rapidly (~300–600 ms). More extensive practice reduced the latency at which habitual responses were prepared, in turn increasing the likelihood of their being expressed. The time-course of habit expression was captured by a computational model in which habitual responses are automatically prepared at short latency but subsequently replaced by goal-directed responses. Our results illustrate robust habit formation in humans and show that practice affects habitual behaviour in two distinct ways: by promoting habit formation and by modulating the likelihood of habit expression.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Task and training schedule for Experiment 1.
Fig. 2: Switch manipulation, retraining and forced-response task results.
Fig. 3: Computational model of response preparation.
Fig. 4: Results for Experiment 2 (20 days/20,000 trials of practice).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available at

Code availability

Analysis code are available at


  1. Robbins, T. W. & Costa, R. M. Habits. Curr. Biol. 27, R1200–R1206 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dolan, R. J. & Dayan, P. Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron 80, 312–325 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wood, W. & Rünger, D. Psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 289–314 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Haith, A. M., Pakpoor, J. & Krakauer, J. W. Independence of movement preparation and movement initiation. J. Neurosci. 36, 3007–3015 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghez, C. et al. Discrete and continuous planning of hand movements and isometric force trajectories. Exp. Brain Res. 115, 217–233 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Morris, L. S. et al. Fronto-striatal organization: defining functional and microstructural substrates of behavioural flexibility. Cortex 74, 118–133 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dickinson, A. Actions and habits: the development of behavioural autonomy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 308, 67–78 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Killcross, S. & Coutureau, E. Coordination of actions and habits in the medial prefrontal cortex of rats. Cereb. Cortex 13, 400–408 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Wit, S. et al. Shifting the balance between goals and habits: five failures in experimental habit induction. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 1043–1065 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hélie, S., Waldschmidt, J. G. & Ashby, F. G. Automaticity in rule-based and information-integration categorization. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 1013–1031 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Keramati, M., Dezfouli, A. & Piray, P. Speed/accuracy trade-off between the habitual and the goal-directed processes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002055 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schouten, J. F. & Bekker, J. A. M. Reaction time and accuracy. Acta Psychol. 27, 143–153 (1967).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong, A. L., Goldsmith, J., Forrence, A. D., Haith, A. M. & Krakauer, J. W. Reaction times can reflect habits rather than computations. eLife 6, e28075 (2017).

  14. Wong, A. L. & Haith, A. M. Motor planning flexibly optimizes performance under uncertainty about task goals. Nat. Commun. 8, 14624 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dekleva, B. M., Kording, K. P. & Miller, L. E. Single reach plans in dorsal premotor cortex during a two-target task. Nat. Commun. 9, 3556 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaufman, M. T. et al. The largest response component in the motor cortex reflects movement timing but not movement type. eNeuro 3, ENEURO.0085-16.2016 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wit, S., de, Corlett, P. R., Aitken, M. R., Dickinson, A. & Fletcher, P. C. Differential engagement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex by goal-directed and habitual behavior toward food pictures in humans. J. Neurosci. 29, 11330–11338 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Otto, A. R., Gershman, S. J., Markman, A. B. & Daw, N. D. The curse of planning: dissecting multiple reinforcement-learning systems by taxing the central executive. Psychol. Sci. 24, 751–761 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwabe, L. & Wolf, O. T. Stress prompts habit behavior in humans. J. Neurosci. 29, 7191–7198 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Otto, A. R. & Daw, N. The opportunity cost of time modulates cognitive effort. Preprint at bioRxiv (2017).

  21. Keramati, M., Smittenaar, P., Dolan, R. J. & Dayan, P. Adaptive integration of habits into depth-limited planning defines a habitual-goal–directed spectrum. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12868–12873 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Katnani, H. A. & Gandhi, N. J. Time course of motor preparation during visual search with flexible stimulus–response association. J. Neurosci. 33, 10057–10065 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernandez-Ruiz, J., Wong, W., Armstrong, I. T. & Flanagan, J. R. Relation between reaction time and reach errors during visuomotor adaptation. Behav. Brain Res. 219, 8–14 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Haith, A. M., Huberdeau, D. M. & Krakauer, J. W. The influence of movement preparation time on the expression of visuomotor learning and savings. J. Neurosci. 35, 5109–5117 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Reis, J. et al. Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1590–1595 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hardwick, R. M., Rajan, V. A., Bastian, A. J., Krakauer, J. W. & Celnik, P. A. Motor learning in stroke: trained patients are not equal to untrained patients with less impairment. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 31, 178–189 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shmuelof, L., Krakauer, J. W. & Mazzoni, P. How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J. Neurophysiol. 108, 578–594 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Haith, A. M. & Krakauer, J. W. The multiple effects of practice: skill, habit and reduced cognitive load. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 20, 196–201 (2018).

  29. Hélie, S. & Cousineau, D. The cognitive neuroscience of automaticity: behavioral and brain signatures. Cogn. Sci. (Hauppauge) 6, 35–53 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shiffrin, R. M. & Dumais, S. T. in Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition (ed. Anderson, J. R.) 111–140 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1981).

  31. Moors, A. & De Hower, J. Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychol. Bull. 132, 297–326 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu, T., Kansaku, K. & Hallett, M. How self-initiated memorized movements become automatic: a functional MRI study. J. Neurophysiol. 91, 1690–1698 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ashby, F. G., Turner, B. O. & Horvitz, J. C. Cortical and basal ganglia contributions to habit learning and automaticity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 208–215 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Grol, M. J., Lange, F. P., de, Verstraten, F. A. J., Passingham, R. E. & Toni, I. Cerebral changes during performance of overlearned arbitrary visuomotor associations. J. Neurosci. 26, 117–125 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Balsters, J. H. & Ramnani, N. Cerebellar plasticity and the automation of first-order rules. J. Neurosci. 31, 2305–2312 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Helie, S., Roeder, J. L. & Ashby, F. G. Evidence for cortical automaticity in rule-based categorization. J. Neurosci. 30, 14225–14234 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hardwick, R. M., Rottschy, C., Miall, R. C. & Eickhoff, S. B. A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. NeuroImage 67, 283–297 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Graybiel, A. M. & Grafton, S. T. The striatum: where skills and habits meet. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a021691 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gardner, B. A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 9, 277–295 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shadlen, M. N. & Kiani, R. Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron 80, 791–806 (2013).

Download references


We thank E. Lesage and Y. Du for helpful comments on the manuscript and M. Adputra for producing the stimuli. This project was supported by an NSF grant (no. 1358756). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 702784 (R.M.H.). The funders had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



R.M.H. and A.M.H. conceived and designed the experiments. R.M.H. collected the data. R.M.H. and A.M.H. analysed the data. R.M.H. and A.M.H. wrote the manuscript. R.M.H., A.D.F., J.W.K. and A.M.H. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Hardwick.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–7 and Supplementary Reference.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hardwick, R.M., Forrence, A.D., Krakauer, J.W. et al. Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1252–1262 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing