habits

Photo by Drew Beamer on Unsplash

Habits Aren’t One Thing, Scientists Say. They’re Two.

In A Nutshell

  • A new mouse study found that habits are controlled by two separate brain circuits, not one: one decides whether a behavior becomes automatic, the other decides how often it gets repeated.
  • The anterior cingulate cortex governs whether a behavior stays deliberate or turns into a habit, acting like a switch between choice and autopilot.
  • A separate pathway, running from the orbitofrontal cortex into the brain’s reward circuitry, controls how often a habit fires once it’s locked in.
  • The findings could give scientists a new way to think about compulsive conditions like OCD and addiction, though the research was done entirely in male mice.

Brushing teeth. Taking the same route to work. Reaching for a snack at the exact same hour every afternoon. Much of daily life runs on mental autopilot, and that’s usually harmless. But the same wiring that makes habits convenient can also make them dangerous, spiraling into compulsions and addictions that feel impossible to shut off.

A new study in male mice uncovered something surprising: the brain doesn’t use one system to build a habit, it uses two, operating almost independently. One circuit decides whether a behavior becomes automatic. A separate circuit decides how often that automatic behavior fires once it’s locked in.

Published in Nature Communications, the research comes from Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, where scientists combined a custom training setup with brain-recording tools and a precision light technique that can selectively erase specific neural connections. One pathway, from the anterior cingulate cortex to a memory-related brain region, governs whether a behavior stays deliberate or turns into a habit. A second, from the lateral orbitofrontal cortex into the brain’s reward circuitry, separately governs how frequently a habit gets repeated.

For years, scientists assumed these were the same process: a habit turns on as automatic behavior, and frequency comes along for the ride. This study says otherwise. Whether something becomes a habit and how relentlessly it gets repeated are controlled by two different switches entirely.

Teaching Mice to Be Creatures of Habit

Catching a habit in the act of forming has long stumped researchers. Older studies compared separate groups of animals, some deliberate, others habitual, making it nearly impossible to watch one behavior tip into the other.

Kyoto researchers solved this by training the same mice through two back-to-back phases. First, mice learned that pressing a lever a set number of times reliably earned sugar water, building deliberate, effort-for-reward behavior. Then the rules changed without warning: reward arrived based on elapsed time, not lever presses. That shift made it harder to connect effort to payoff, pushing behavior toward pure habit. Only male mice were used, to avoid hormonal variability, so it isn’t yet clear whether the same findings hold in females or humans.

Because the same animals went through both phases, scientists could watch individual mice make the transition in real time. Once the rules changed, most mice kept pressing the lever at roughly the same pace even after the sugar water was made deliberately unappealing, a telltale sign the behavior had become habitual and was no longer driven by whether the reward was actually worth wanting.

habit forming mice
Individual differences exist in whether the frequency of habitual behavior is “maintained” or “reduced.”

Using the “two-stage training” method to shift the decision-making strategy of mice from goal-directed to habitual (left ⇒ right), a variety of changes (individual differences) were observed, ranging from individuals that maintained their frequency of behavior to those whose level decreased (top ⇔ bottom). Credit: KyotoU / Nozomi Asaoka

Two Brain Pathways, Two Very Different Jobs

To see what was happening inside the brain, researchers zoomed in on synapses, the tiny points where one brain cell passes a signal to another. The more a synapse gets used, the stronger it becomes, like a footpath through grass turning into a worn dirt trail.

In the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s planning hub, one clear pattern stood out. Connections from the anterior cingulate cortex grew stronger while mice weighed effort against reward, then weakened once habit took over.

Dialing down the anterior cingulate cortex with a drug in mice still behaving deliberately made them act like habit-driven animals, pressing the lever just as often even after the reward had been spoiled. Dialing the same region back up in already-habitual mice nudged behavior back toward deliberate decision-making, functioning almost like a dimmer switch between choice and autopilot.

Frequency, though, played by entirely different rules. How often mice pressed the lever tracked instead with connections from the lateral orbitofrontal cortex into the brain’s reward circuitry. Turning those connections up or down changed repetition frequency without affecting whether the behavior counted as a habit at all.

Confirming the Split, and What It Could Mean for Compulsion

To make sure the pattern was real, researchers used a precise optical tool to erase learned strengthening in specific neurons right after training. Erasing it in the anterior cingulate pathway made mice fall into habits faster than usual. Erasing the equivalent connections in the reward-circuitry pathway made mice press the lever far less, though behavior stayed just as habitual. Neither treatment touched the other’s job.

Live recordings from tiny brain-mounted microscopes backed this up. Anterior cingulate neurons fired hardest during reward when mice were deliberate, then quieted once habit set in. Reward-circuitry neurons did the opposite: the more active, the more often that mouse repeated the habit.

These circuits may matter well beyond mouse behavior. In conditions like OCD and addiction, the trouble isn’t only that a behavior runs on autopilot, it’s that it runs constantly, overwhelming daily life. Earlier research has tied overactivity between the orbitofrontal cortex and reward circuitry to compulsive symptoms in animal models. A separate circuit controlling sheer repetition gives scientists a new thread to pull on when trying to understand why some habits spiral out of control while others stay harmless, though that remains a research idea, not a proven human explanation.

Study authors note the work was done entirely in male mice, and whether the same two-track system exists in females or humans remains open. What the findings make clear is that a habit was never one thing. Deciding to repeat a behavior and deciding how often are handled by separate machinery in the brain, a distinction that could eventually change how scientists approach the most damaging habits.


Paper Notes

Limitations

This study was conducted entirely in male mice, a choice the authors made to minimize variability tied to the hormonal fluctuations of the estrous cycle, meaning the findings may not directly translate to female animals or to humans. As with any rodent study, the behavioral task, while carefully designed, only approximates the far more complex decision-making humans navigate daily. The drugs used to activate or suppress brain regions carry some risk of off-target effects, though the researchers note that results lined up closely with a separate, more precise optical technique, which supports the reliability of the findings. Technical limitations in image alignment also meant individual neurons couldn’t be tracked across the full training period during live imaging, so those comparisons were made at the population level rather than the single-cell level.

Funding and Disclosures

This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research JP22K15291 and JP25K02556 from MEXT, Japan; AMED Brain/MINDS 2.0 JP24wm0625507; the Uehara Memorial Foundation; the Kobayashi Foundation; the Takeda Science Foundation; the Astellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic Disorders (to N. Asaoka); Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research JP18H05434, JP22H04981, and JP22K21353 from MEXT, Japan; the Uehara Memorial Foundation; the Naito Foundation; the Research Foundation for Opto-Science and Technology; the Novartis Foundation; the Takeda Science Foundation; HFSP Research Grant RGP0022/2013; and JST CREST JPMJCR20E4 (to Y. Hayashi). The authors declare no competing interests.

Publication Details

Authors: Nozomi Asaoka, Diane Pagano, and Yasunori Hayashi, all affiliated with the Department of Pharmacology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. | Journal: Nature Communications | Paper Title: “Dissociable roles of prefrontal plasticity in decision-making strategy and execution of habitual behavior” | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-75706-1 | Received: August 26, 2025 | Accepted: July 6, 2026 | Article Number: 6822

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Comment