Yanfang Xia, Huaiyu Liu, Oliver K Kälin, Samuel Gerster, Dominik R Bach
{"title":"Measuring Human Pavlovian Reward Conditioning and Memory Retention After Consolidation.","authors":"Yanfang Xia, Huaiyu Liu, Oliver K Kälin, Samuel Gerster, Dominik R Bach","doi":"10.1111/psyp.70058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While a body of literature has addressed the quantification of aversive Pavlovian conditioning in humans, Pavlovian reward conditioning with primary reinforcers and its recall after overnight consolidation remain understudied. In particular, few studies have directly compared different conditioned response types and their retrodictive validity. Here, we sought to fill this gap by investigating heart period responses (HPR), skin conductance responses (SCR), pupil size responses (PSR), and respiration amplitude responses (RAR). We conducted two independent experiments (N<sub>1</sub> = 37, N<sub>2</sub> = 34) with a learning phase and a recall phase 7 days later. A visual conditioned stimulus (CS+) predicted fruit juice reward (unconditioned stimulus, US), while a second CS- predicted US absence. In experiment 1, model-based analysis of HPR distinguished CS+/CS-, both during learning (Hedge's g = 0.56) and recall (g = 0.40). Furthermore, model-based analysis of PSR distinguished CS+/CS- in early trials during recall (g = 0.69). As an out-of-sample generalization test, experiment 2 confirmed the result for HPR during learning (g = 0.78) and recall (g = 0.55), as well as for PSR during recall (g = 0.41). In contrast, peak-scoring analysis of PSR yielded low retrodictive validity. We conclude that in our Pavlovian reward conditioning paradigm, HPR is a valid measure of reward learning, while both HPR and PSR validly index the retention of reward memory.</p>","PeriodicalId":20913,"journal":{"name":"Psychophysiology","volume":"62 4","pages":"e70058"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12032384/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70058","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
While a body of literature has addressed the quantification of aversive Pavlovian conditioning in humans, Pavlovian reward conditioning with primary reinforcers and its recall after overnight consolidation remain understudied. In particular, few studies have directly compared different conditioned response types and their retrodictive validity. Here, we sought to fill this gap by investigating heart period responses (HPR), skin conductance responses (SCR), pupil size responses (PSR), and respiration amplitude responses (RAR). We conducted two independent experiments (N1 = 37, N2 = 34) with a learning phase and a recall phase 7 days later. A visual conditioned stimulus (CS+) predicted fruit juice reward (unconditioned stimulus, US), while a second CS- predicted US absence. In experiment 1, model-based analysis of HPR distinguished CS+/CS-, both during learning (Hedge's g = 0.56) and recall (g = 0.40). Furthermore, model-based analysis of PSR distinguished CS+/CS- in early trials during recall (g = 0.69). As an out-of-sample generalization test, experiment 2 confirmed the result for HPR during learning (g = 0.78) and recall (g = 0.55), as well as for PSR during recall (g = 0.41). In contrast, peak-scoring analysis of PSR yielded low retrodictive validity. We conclude that in our Pavlovian reward conditioning paradigm, HPR is a valid measure of reward learning, while both HPR and PSR validly index the retention of reward memory.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1964, Psychophysiology is the most established journal in the world specifically dedicated to the dissemination of psychophysiological science. The journal continues to play a key role in advancing human neuroscience in its many forms and methodologies (including central and peripheral measures), covering research on the interrelationships between the physiological and psychological aspects of brain and behavior. Typically, studies published in Psychophysiology include psychological independent variables and noninvasive physiological dependent variables (hemodynamic, optical, and electromagnetic brain imaging and/or peripheral measures such as respiratory sinus arrhythmia, electromyography, pupillography, and many others). The majority of studies published in the journal involve human participants, but work using animal models of such phenomena is occasionally published. Psychophysiology welcomes submissions on new theoretical, empirical, and methodological advances in: cognitive, affective, clinical and social neuroscience, psychopathology and psychiatry, health science and behavioral medicine, and biomedical engineering. The journal publishes theoretical papers, evaluative reviews of literature, empirical papers, and methodological papers, with submissions welcome from scientists in any fields mentioned above.