ArticleScientific reports2025
Intra-individual comparison of appetitive trace and delay conditioning in humans across acquisition and extinction.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Temporal contiguity between conditioned (CS) and unconditioned stimuli (US) is a crucial factor in Pavlovian learning, yet little is known about its role in appetitive conditioning and extinction. In a within-subject design, 60 participants underwent both a delay (DC) and trace conditioning (TC) session with partial reinforcement (75%) by monetary rewards (US) and varying interval between CS offset and US onset (DC: 0s; TC: 4s). In addition to self-report indices (reward expectancy, arousal, valence), psychophysiological markers (pupil dilation, heart-period and startle reflex modulation) were recorded during acquisition and extinction training. For most measures, significant differential conditioned responses emerged, irrespective of temporal contiguity, with no major differences observed between TC and DC during acquisition (except for potentially diminished startle attenuation in TC). Despite overall similar patterns in conditioned responding (with small to moderate effects on physiological measures), there was no intraindividual concordance between sessions, yet evidence for differential TC effects on extinction learning. Specifically, smaller reductions in differential reward expectancy, heart-period deceleration and startle modulation after extinction in TC suggested relatively diminished extinction learning. Conditioned pupil dilation (0-2 s after CS onset) remained comparatively stable. Taken together, our findings extend evidence of differences in underlying learning mechanisms between TC and DC to the context of reward learning.
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.