↓ Skip to main content

The three principles of action: a Pavlovian-instrumental transfer hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
The three principles of action: a Pavlovian-instrumental transfer hypothesis
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilio Cartoni, Stefano Puglisi-Allegra, Gianluca Baldassarre

Abstract

Pavlovian conditioned stimuli can influence instrumental responding, an effect called Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT). During the last decade, PIT has been subdivided into two types: specific PIT and general PIT, each having its own neural substrates. Specific PIT happens when a conditioned stimulus (CS) associated with a reward enhances an instrumental response directed to the same reward. Under general PIT, instead, the CS enhances a response directed to a different reward. While important progress has been made into identifying the neural substrates, the function of specific and general PIT and how they interact with instrumental responses are still not clear. In the experimental paradigm that distinguishes specific and general PIT an effect of PIT inhibition has also been observed and is waiting for an explanation. Here we propose an hypothesis that links these three PIT effects (specific PIT, general PIT and PIT inhibition) to three aspects of action evaluation. These three aspects, which we call "principles of action", are: context, efficacy, and utility. In goal-directed behavior, an agent has to evaluate if the context is suitable to accomplish the goal, the efficacy of his action in getting the goal, and the utility of the goal itself: we suggest that each of the three PIT effects is related to one of these aspects of action evaluation. In particular, we link specific PIT with the estimation of efficacy, general PIT with the evaluation of utility, and PIT inhibition with the adequacy of context. We also provide a latent cause Bayesian computational model that exemplifies this hypothesis. This hypothesis and the model provide a new framework and new predictions to advance knowledge about PIT functioning and its role in animal adaptation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Japan 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Montenegro 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Unknown 249 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 21%
Researcher 42 16%
Student > Bachelor 42 16%
Student > Master 35 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 42 16%
Unknown 32 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 96 37%
Neuroscience 65 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 6%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 39 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,386,820
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#410
of 3,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,447
of 284,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#26
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,277 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 284,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.