ArticleScientific reports2025
Measuring cue-elicited responding in the context of gaming and online shopping: Validity and reliability of a short Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer paradigm.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cue-elicited habits are considered relevant in the development and maintenance of addictive behaviors. To investigate this mechanism in online shopping and gaming, this study developed and evaluated a short Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) paradigm with gaming- and shopping-related cues and a devaluation procedure. Additionally, the retest reliability of this short PIT paradigm was assessed. A sample with game use (N = 32) and a sample with use of shopping websites (N = 31) performed the PIT paradigm twice and an Approach-Avoidance Task in between. During both sessions of the PIT paradigm, either the gaming- or shopping-related reward (depending on the sample) was devalued by eliminating its availability. While gaming-related cues enhanced responding for the gaming-related reward (gaming PIT effect), shopping-related cues triggered responding for the shopping-related reward (shopping PIT effect). This cue-elicited responding was reduced, but not eliminated, after devaluation, which might indicate habit-like responding. Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed similar responding towards cues displaying favorite and non-favorite games/shopping websites. The magnitudes of the PIT effects demonstrated moderate stability. Although replication in clinical samples and over longer time intervals is warranted, our PIT paradigm may enable a reliable and economic assessment of cue-elicited responding in the context of gaming and online shopping.
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.