↓ Skip to main content

Monetary, Food, and Social Rewards Induce Similar Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Monetary, Food, and Social Rewards Induce Similar Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00247
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rea Lehner, Joshua H. Balsters, Andreas Herger, Todd A. Hare, Nicole Wenderoth

Abstract

Multiple types of reward, such as money, food or social approval, are capable of driving behavior. However, most previous investigations have only focused on one of these reward classes in isolation, as such it is not clear whether different reward classes have a unique influence on instrumental responding or whether the subjective value of the reward, rather than the reward type per se, is most important in driving behavior. Here, we investigate behavior using a well-established reward paradigm, Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT), and three different reward types: monetary, food and social rewards. The subjective value of each reward type was matched using a modified Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) auction where subjective reward value was expressed through physical effort using a bimanual grip force task. We measured the influence of reward-associated stimuli on how participants distributed forces between hands when reaching a target effort range on the screen bimanually and on how much time participants spent in this target range. Participants spent significantly more time in the target range (15% ± 2% maximal voluntary contraction) when a stimulus was presented that was associated with a reward used during instrumental conditioning or Pavlovian conditioning compared to a stimulus associated with a neutral outcome (i.e., general PIT). The strength of the PIT effect was modulated by subjective value (i.e., individuals who showed a stronger PIT effect rated the value of rewards more highly), but not by reward type, demonstrating that stimuli of all reward types were able to act as appetitive reinforcers and influenced instrumental responding, when matched to the same subjective reward value. This is the first demonstration that individually matched monetary, food and social rewards are equally effective as appetitive reinforcers in PIT. These findings strengthen the hypotheses that the subjective value is crucial for how much reward-associated stimuli influence behavior.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 32 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 30%
Neuroscience 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 39 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#5,578,696
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#877
of 3,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,640
of 427,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#13
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.