4.5 Article

Pavlovian to Instrumental Transfer of Control in a Human Learning Task

期刊

EMOTION
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 1112-1123

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0022760

关键词

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer; PIT; sensory-specific associations; motivational control; human learning

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA027764, R01 DA027764-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH065947, R01 MH065947-02] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [R01 065947] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pavlovian learning tasks have been widely used as tools to understand basic cognitive and emotional processes in humans. The present studies investigated one particular task, Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT), with human participants in an effort to examine potential cognitive and emotional effects of Pavlovian cues upon instrumentally trained performance. In two experiments, subjects first learned two separate instrumental response-outcome relationships (i.e., R1-O1 and R2-O2) and then were exposed to various stimulus-outcome relationships (i.e., S1-O1, S2-O2, S3-O3, and S4-) before the effects of the Pavlovian stimuli on instrumental responding were assessed during a non-reinforced test. In Experiment 1, instrumental responding was established using a positive-reinforcement procedure, whereas in Experiment 2, a quasi-avoidance learning task was used. In both cases, the Pavlovian stimuli exerted selective control over instrumental responding, whereby S1 and S2 selectively elevated the instrumental response with which it shared an outcome. In addition, in Experiment 2, S3 exerted a nonselective transfer of control effect, whereby both responses were elevated over baseline levels. These data identify two ways, one specific and one general, in which Pavlovian processes can exert control over instrumental responding in human learning paradigms, suggesting that this method may serve as a useful tool in the study of basic cognitive and emotional processes in human learning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据