Contextual modulation of human associative learning following novelty-facilitated extinction, counterconditioning, and conventional extinction.

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Jérémie Jozefowiez, James E Witnauer, Yaroslav Moshchenko, Cameron M McCrea, Kristina A Stenstrom, Ralph R Miller
{"title":"Contextual modulation of human associative learning following novelty-facilitated extinction, counterconditioning, and conventional extinction.","authors":"Jérémie Jozefowiez, James E Witnauer, Yaroslav Moshchenko, Cameron M McCrea, Kristina A Stenstrom, Ralph R Miller","doi":"10.1037/xan0000385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The expression of an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can be attenuated by presenting the CS by itself (i.e., extinction, Ext). Though effective, Ext is susceptible to recovery effects such as renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement. Dunsmoor et al. (2015, 2019) have proposed that pairing the CS with a neutral outcome (novelty-facilitated Ext [NFE]) could offer better protection against recovery effects than Ext. Though NFE has been compared to Ext, it has rarely been compared to counterconditioning (CC), a similar procedure except that the CS is paired with a US having a valence opposite to the US used in initial training. We report two aversive conditioning experiments using the rapid-trial streaming procedure with human participants that compare the efficacies and susceptibilities to ABA renewal of Ext, CC, and NFE. Associative learning was assessed through expectancy learning and evaluative conditioning. CC and NFE equally decreased anticipation of the US in the presence of the CS (i.e., expectancy learning). Depending on how the CS-US association was probed, they were either as or more effective at doing so than Ext. All three interference treatments were equally susceptible to context manipulations. Only CC clearly altered the valence of the CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). Valence ratings after Ext, CC, and NFE, as well as a no-interference control condition, were all equally susceptible to context effects. Overall, the present study does not support the assertion that NFE is consistently more resistant to recovery effects than Ext. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54259,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000385","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The expression of an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can be attenuated by presenting the CS by itself (i.e., extinction, Ext). Though effective, Ext is susceptible to recovery effects such as renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement. Dunsmoor et al. (2015, 2019) have proposed that pairing the CS with a neutral outcome (novelty-facilitated Ext [NFE]) could offer better protection against recovery effects than Ext. Though NFE has been compared to Ext, it has rarely been compared to counterconditioning (CC), a similar procedure except that the CS is paired with a US having a valence opposite to the US used in initial training. We report two aversive conditioning experiments using the rapid-trial streaming procedure with human participants that compare the efficacies and susceptibilities to ABA renewal of Ext, CC, and NFE. Associative learning was assessed through expectancy learning and evaluative conditioning. CC and NFE equally decreased anticipation of the US in the presence of the CS (i.e., expectancy learning). Depending on how the CS-US association was probed, they were either as or more effective at doing so than Ext. All three interference treatments were equally susceptible to context manipulations. Only CC clearly altered the valence of the CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). Valence ratings after Ext, CC, and NFE, as well as a no-interference control condition, were all equally susceptible to context effects. Overall, the present study does not support the assertion that NFE is consistently more resistant to recovery effects than Ext. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

新奇感促进消退、反条件反射和传统消退对人类联想学习的情境调节。
条件刺激(CS)和非条件刺激(US)之间的联想可以通过单独呈现 CS 来减弱(即消退,Ext)。Ext 虽然有效,但容易受到恢复效应的影响,如恢复、自发恢复和恢复。Dunsmoor等人(2015年、2019年)提出,与Ext相比,将CS与中性结果配对(新奇促进Ext [NFE])可以更好地防止恢复效应。虽然NFE已经与Ext进行了比较,但却很少与反条件反射(CC)进行比较,CC与CS类似,只是CS与US配对,US的价态与初始训练中使用的US相反。我们以人类参与者为对象,报告了两项使用快速试验流程序进行的厌恶性条件反射实验,比较了 Ext、CC 和 NFE 的效果和对 ABA 更新的敏感性。联想学习通过预期学习和评价性条件反射进行评估。在存在 CS 的情况下,CC 和 NFE 同样会降低对 US 的预期(即预期学习)。根据探究 CS-US 关联的方式,它们在这方面的效果要么与 Ext 相同,要么更好。只有 CC 能明显改变 CS 的价值(即评价性条件反射)。Ext、CC 和 NFE 以及无干扰对照条件下的价值评定都同样容易受到情境效应的影响。总体而言,本研究并不支持 NFE 始终比 Ext 更能抵抗恢复效应的说法(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition Psychology-Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
23.10%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信