ArticleComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Improving the Reliability of the Pavlovian Go/No-Go Task for Computational Psychiatry Research.
Article in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The recoverability, reliability, and generalizability of reward processing parameters and relation to mental health symptoms.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- Early reduction in aversive Pavlovian bias as a mediator of anhedonia improvement during Behavioural Activation in realistic treatment settings.PLoS computational biology · 2026Observational
- Cognitive & Behavioral Assessment Toolbox (CBAT): An open-source platform supporting experiments in computational psychiatry.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- Protocol for a randomized trial to predict the efficacy of cognitive and behavioral interventions for symptoms of depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Pavlovian bias is associated with symptom severity but not diagnostic status in individuals with both anxious and non-anxious depression.Translational psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
- Intertemporal Pavlovian biases and links with mental health in the general population.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- A task-invariant prior explains trial-by-trial active avoidance behaviour across gain and loss tasks.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Using computational models of learning to advance cognitive behavioral therapy.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Active reinforcement learning versus action bias and hysteresis: control with a mixture of experts and nonexperts.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Test-Retest Reliability of Two Computationally-Characterised Affective Bias Tasks.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Interindividual differences in Pavlovian influence on learning are consistent.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Test-retest reliability of computational parameters versus manifest behavior for decisional flexibility in psychosis.Psychological assessmentArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Pavlovian go/no-go task is commonly used to measure individual differences in Pavlovian biases and their interaction with instrumental learning. The task has also been widely used in computational psychiatry research, to correlate Pavlovian biases with mental health symptoms. However, prior research has reported unacceptable reliability for computational model-based performance measures for this task, limiting its usefulness in individual-differences research. Here, we apply several strategies previously shown to enhance task-measure reliability (e.g., task gamification, hierarchical Bayesian modeling for model estimation) to the Pavlovian go/no-go task, to improve the reliability of the task as a tool for future research. Methods: In two experiments, two independent samples of adult participants (N = 103, N = 110) completed a novel, gamified version of the Pavlovian go/no-go task multiple times over several weeks. We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to derive reinforcement learning model-based indices of participants' task performance, and to estimate the reliability of these measures. Results: In Experiment 1, we observed considerable practice effects, with most participants reaching near-ceiling levels of performance with repeat testing. Consequently, the test-retest reliability of some model parameters was unacceptable (as low as 0.379). In Experiment 2, participants completed a modified version of the task designed to lessen these practice effects. We observed greatly reduced practice effects and improved estimates of the test-retest reliability (range: 0.696-0.989). Conclusion: The results demonstrate that model-based measures of performance on our modified Pavlovian go/no-go task can reach levels of reliability sufficient for use in individual-differences research. We therefore provide the task code for use by the computational psychiatry community (as well as other researchers). Additional investigation is necessary to validate the modified version of the task in other populations and settings.
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.