ArticleNPJ science of learning2025
Pavlovian to instrumental transfer of control over fight or flight decisions.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This study investigated outcome-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) in fight-or-flight decision making. Participants learned to attack or retreat from monsters (instrumental phase) and to associate environments with specific monsters without responding (Pavlovian phase). In the transfer phase, they chose responses to unseen monsters while exposed to conditioned stimuli (CSs). Study 1 (n = 86) found that CSs influenced fight-or-flight decisions, demonstrating both outcome-selective and outcome-general PIT effects. Study 2 (n = 76) tested the operation of cognitive beliefs with post-training instructions that reversed the CS-outcome relations, revealing a reversed PIT effect. Study 3 (n = 83) manipulated threat levels by featuring highly dangerous monsters. Results showed a larger specific PIT under low versus high threat with standard instructions but not with reversal instructions. Findings suggest that associative knowledge about upcoming threats is integrated with knowledge of defensive actions into cognitive beliefs about which response is most effective for coping with danger.
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.