ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Interindividual differences in Pavlovian influence on learning are consistent.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Test-retest reliability of the gaze index for sign-tracking and goal-tracking.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Improving the Reliability of the Pavlovian Go/No-Go Task for Computational Psychiatry Research.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Dynamic computational phenotyping of human cognition.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Interindividual differences in Pavlovian influence on learning are consistent.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pavlovian influences impair instrumental learning. It is easier to learn to approach reward-predictive signals and avoid punishment-predictive cues than their contrary. Whether the interindividual variability in this Pavlovian influence is consistent across time has been examined by a number of recent studies and met with mixed results. Here we introduce an open-source, web-based instance of a well-established Go-NoGo paradigm for measuring Pavlovian influence. We closely replicated the previous laboratory-based results. Moreover, the interindividual differences in Pavlovian influence were consistent across a two-week time window at the level of (i) raw measures of learning (i.e. performance accuracy), (ii) linear, descriptive estimates of Pavlovian bias (test-retest reliability: 0.40), and (iii) parameters obtained from reinforcement learning model fitting and model selection (test-retest reliability: 0.25). Nonetheless, the correlations reported here are still lower than the standards (i.e. 0.7) employed in psychometrics and self-reported measures. Our results provide support for trusting Pavlovian bias as a relatively stable individual characteristic and for using its measure in the computational understanding of human mental health.
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.