Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36051636›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2022

General Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer in humans: Evidence from Bayesian inference.

Luigi A E Degni, Daniela Dalbagno, Francesca Starita, Mariagrazia Benassi, Giuseppe di Pellegrino, Sara Garofalo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reduced Pavlovian Value Updating Alters Decision-Making in Sign-Trackers.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Cortical Beta Power Reflects the Influence of Pavlovian Cues on Human Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luigi A E DegniCenter for studies and research in Cognitive Neuroscience (CsrNC), Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Daniela DalbagnoCenter for studies and research in Cognitive Neuroscience (CsrNC), Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Francesca StaritaCenter for studies and research in Cognitive Neuroscience (CsrNC), Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Mariagrazia BenassiPsychometrics and Neuropsychology Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Giuseppe di PellegrinoCenter for studies and research in Cognitive Neuroscience (CsrNC), Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Sara GarofaloCenter for studies and research in Cognitive Neuroscience (CsrNC), Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
University of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When repeatedly paired with rewarding outcomes (i.e., Pavlovian conditioning), environmental cues may acquire predictive and motivational significance and later enhance instrumental responding for the same (i.e., outcome-specific transfer) or motivationally similar (i.e., general transfer) outcomes. Although outcome-specific and general Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) are characterized by different neural substrates and behavioral mechanisms, general transfer has never been studied in isolation from outcome-specific transfer in humans. The first aim of the present study was to test whether the general transfer effect could emerge in isolation and independently of outcome-specific transfer. Our results showed that general transfer can be elicited without the concurrent presence of outcome-specific transfer, supporting the idea that outcome-specific and general transfer can be studied independently of each other. The second aim of the present study was to clarify whether the affordance-like properties of the outcomes can affect the general transfer. In fact, a critical difference in current studies on general transfer concerns the use of cues associated with outcomes for which an action was previously learned (or not) during the instrumental training. This apparently minor difference affects the affordance-like properties of the outcome and may also be transferred to the cue, in turn impacting general transfer. Results revealed a general transfer of the same magnitude regardless of whether cues were associated with reward earned or not during instrumental conditioning. These findings increase the current knowledge on the incentive motivational mechanism behind general transfer, indicating that it is independent of the motor features of the outcome.

Indexed as

Bayesian statistics in neurosciencecue-guided choicesdecision-makinggeneral Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfermotivation

Identifiers

PMID36051636
PMCPMC9426756
OpenAlexW4293063696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.