ArticlePsychopharmacology2019
Impacts of inter-trial interval duration on a computational model of sign-tracking vs. goal-tracking behaviour.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The spatiotemporal dynamics of conditioned behavior: First-order and higher-order conditioning.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2025Article
- Leveraging individual differences in cue-reward learning to investigate the psychological and neural basis of shared psychiatric symptomatology: The sign-tracker/goal-tracker model.Behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
- Reward-Mediated, Model-Free Reinforcement-Learning Mechanisms in Pavlovian and Instrumental Tasks Are Related.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Editorial: bridging the gap with computational and translational psychopharmacology.Psychopharmacology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In the context of Pavlovian conditioning, two types of behaviour may emerge within the population (Flagel et al. Nature, 469(7328): 53-57, 2011). Animals may choose to engage either with the conditioned stimulus (CS), a behaviour known as sign-tracking (ST) which is sensitive to dopamine inhibition for its acquisition, or with the food cup in which the reward or unconditioned stimulus (US) will eventually be delivered, a behaviour known as goal-tracking (GT) which is dependent on dopamine for its expression only. Previous work by Lesaint et al. (PLoS Comput Biol, 10(2), 2014) offered a computational explanation for these phenomena and led to the prediction that varying the duration of the inter-trial interval (ITI) would change the relative ST-GT proportion in the population as well as phasic dopamine responses. A recent study verified this prediction, but also found a rich variance of ST and GT behaviours within the trial which goes beyond the original computational model. In this paper, we provide a computational perspective on these novel results.
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.