Display options
Cite
Cartoni E, Moretta T, Puglisi-Allegra S, et al. The Relationship Between Specific Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer and Instrumental Reward Probability. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1697doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697.
Cartoni, E., Moretta, T., Puglisi-Allegra, S., Cabib, S., & Baldassarre, G. (2015). The Relationship Between Specific Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer and Instrumental Reward Probability. Frontiers in psychology, 61697. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697
Cartoni, Emilio, et al. "The Relationship Between Specific Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer and Instrumental Reward Probability." Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 (2015): 1697. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697
Cartoni E, Moretta T, Puglisi-Allegra S, Cabib S, Baldassarre G. The Relationship Between Specific Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer and Instrumental Reward Probability. Front Psychol. 2015 Nov 17;6:1697. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26635645; PMCID: PMC4648073.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2015 Nov 17;6:1697. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697. eCollection 2015.

The Relationship Between Specific Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer and Instrumental Reward Probability.

Frontiers in psychology

Emilio Cartoni, Tania Moretta, Stefano Puglisi-Allegra, Simona Cabib, Gianluca Baldassarre

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Computational Embodied Neuroscience, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy Rome, Italy ; Dipartimento di Psicologia, Sapienza - Università di Roma Rome, Italy.
  2. Laboratory of Computational Embodied Neuroscience, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy Rome, Italy ; Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova Padua, Italy.
  3. Dipartimento di Psicologia and Centro Daniel Bovet, Sapienza - Università di Roma Rome, Italy ; Fondazione Santa Lucia, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Rome, Italy.
  4. Laboratory of Computational Embodied Neuroscience, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy Rome, Italy.

PMID: 26635645 PMCID: PMC4648073 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01697

Abstract

Goal-directed behavior is influenced by environmental cues: in particular, cues associated with a reward can bias action choice toward actions directed to that same reward. This effect is studied experimentally as specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (specific PIT). We have investigated the hypothesis that cues associated to an outcome elicit specific PIT by rising the estimates of reward probability of actions associated to that same outcome. In other words, cues reduce the uncertainty on the efficacy of instrumental actions. We used a human PIT experimental paradigm to test the effects of two different instrumental contingencies: one group of participants had a 33% chance of being rewarded for each button press, while another had a 100% chance. The group trained with 33% reward probability showed a stronger PIT effect than the 100% group, in line with the hypothesis that Pavlovian cues linked to an outcome work by reducing the uncertainty of receiving it. The 100% group also showed a significant specific PIT effect, highlighting additional factors that could contribute to specific PIT beyond the instrumental training contingency. We hypothesize that the uncertainty about reward delivery due to testing in extinction might be one of these factors. These results add knowledge on how goal-directed behavior is influenced by the presence of environmental cues associated with a reward: such influence depends on the probability that we have to reach a reward, namely when there is less chance of getting a reward we are more influenced by cues associated with it, and vice versa.

Keywords: Pavlovian instrumental transfer; human PIT; instrumental contingency; reward probability; specific PIT

References

  1. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(3):574-88 - PubMed
  2. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2013 Jan;39(1):14-23 - PubMed
  3. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1983 Jul;9(3):225-47 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Res. 2009 Jul;73(4):463-76 - PubMed
  5. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 - PubMed
  6. Front Behav Neurosci. 2013 Nov 19;7:153 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2013 Jan;39(1):2-13 - PubMed
  8. Psychol Med. 1982 Nov;12(4):871-8 - PubMed
  9. Behav Neurosci. 2000 Jun;114(3):468-83 - PubMed
  10. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2010 Jul;36(3):402-8 - PubMed
  11. J Neurosci. 2012 Jun 13;32(24):8383-90 - PubMed
  12. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013 Apr;1282:12-24 - PubMed
  13. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2004 Apr;30(2):104-17 - PubMed
  14. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2007 Oct;33(4):484-96 - PubMed
  15. Behav Res Ther. 2014 Aug;59:61-70 - PubMed
  16. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42 - PubMed
  17. J Neurosci. 2005 Jan 26;25(4):962-70 - PubMed
  18. J Neurosci. 2008 May 28;28(22):5861-6 - PubMed
  19. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Apr 12;199(1):89-102 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48227 - PubMed
  21. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015;23:165-91 - PubMed
  22. Psychol Res. 2004 Apr;68(2-3):138-54 - PubMed
  23. Behav Processes. 2012 May;90(1):9-19 - PubMed
  24. J Neurosci. 2014 Jan 22;34(4):1358-69 - PubMed
  25. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 May;37(3):757-65 - PubMed

Publication Types