ArticlePsychophysiology2019
Generalization of appetitive conditioned responses.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reactivity to Smoking Cues in a Social Context: Virtual Reality Experiment.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Measuring Human Pavlovian Reward Conditioning and Memory Retention After Consolidation.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Perceptual Generalization of Alcohol-Related Value Characterizes Risky Drinkers.Psychological science · 2023Article
- VR for Studying the Neuroscience of Emotional Responses.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023Article
- Generalization of Conditioned Contextual Anxiety and the Modulatory Effects of Anxiety Sensitivity.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020Article
- Semantic generalization of value-based attentional priority.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Generalization of appetitive conditioned responses.Psychophysiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) associated with an appetitive unconditioned stimulus (US) acquires positive properties and elicits appetitive conditioned responses (CR). Such associative learning has been examined extensively in animals with food as the US, and results are used to explain psychopathologies (e.g., substance-related disorders or obesity). Human studies on appetitive conditioning exist, too, but we still know little about generalization processes. Understanding these processes may explain why stimuli not associated with a drug, for instance, can elicit craving. Forty-seven hungry participants underwent an appetitive conditioning protocol during which one of two circles with different diameters (CS+) became associated with an appetitive US (chocolate or salty pretzel, according to participants' preference) but never the other circle (CS-). During generalization, US were delivered twice and the two CS were presented again plus four circles (generalization stimuli, GS) with gradually increasing diameters from CS- to CS+. We found successful appetitive conditioning as reflected in appetitive subjective ratings (positive valence, higher contingency) and physiological responses (startle attenuation and larger skin conductance responses) to CS+ versus CS-, and, importantly, both measures confirmed generalization as indicated by generalization gradients. Small changes in CS-US contingency during generalization may have weakened generalization processes on the physiological level. Considering that appetitive conditioned responses can be generalized to non-US-associated stimuli, a next important step would be to investigate risk factors that mediate overgeneralization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.