Behavioral and neural processes in counterconditioning: Past and future directions

Keller, Nicole E.; Hennings, Augustin C.; Dunsmoor, Joseph E.

doi:10.1016/j.brat.2019.103532

Cited by 64 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Running head: EXTINCTION VS. COUNTERCONDITIONING 6 An alternative procedure to reduce fear is counterconditioning, which involves pairing the CS+ with a US of opposite valence (Keller, Hennings, & Dunsmoor, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No differences in return of pain-related fear after extinction and counterconditioning.

Gatzounis¹,

Bruyn²,

Velde³

et al. 2022

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extinction-based protocols such as exposure-in-vivo successfully reduce pain-related fear in chronic pain conditions, but return of fear and clinical relapse often occur. Counterconditioning is assumed to attenuate return of fear, likely through changing the negative affective valence of the conditioned stimulus (CS). We hypothesized that counterconditioning would outperform extinction in mitigating return of pain-related fear, and decrease CS negative affective valence.Healthy participants performed a conditioning task, in which two joystick movements (CSs+) were paired with a painful electrocutaneous stimulus (unconditioned stimulus; pain-US), whereas two other movements (CSs-) were not. Subsequently, in the extinction group, one CS+ was extinguished (pain-US omission) and the other not, whereas in the counterconditioning group, one CS+ was presented with a US of opposite valence (reward-US) and the other was paired with both USs. We tested reinstatement of pain-related fear after two unsignalled pain-US presentations. Results showed no group differences in fear reduction and no differences in CS affective valence changes between the extinguished and counterconditioned CS. Remarkably, none of the groups showed reinstatement. Overall, counterconditioning did not appear to be more effective than extinction in reducing pain-related fear and its return.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No differences in return of pain-related fear after extinction and counterconditioning.

Gatzounis¹,

Bruyn²,

Velde³

et al. 2022

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present findings may also carry clinical significance. For instance, they suggest the possibility of expediting counterconditioning procedures by coupling them with associabilityboosting manipulations (Keller et al, 2020). In behavioral therapy, counterconditioning refers to a collection of procedures that seek to modify maladaptive behaviors by associating their triggering events with an outcome of the opposite affective valence (Keller et al, 2020;Konorski & Szwejkowska, 1956).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, they suggest the possibility of expediting counterconditioning procedures by coupling them with associabilityboosting manipulations (Keller et al, 2020). In behavioral therapy, counterconditioning refers to a collection of procedures that seek to modify maladaptive behaviors by associating their triggering events with an outcome of the opposite affective valence (Keller et al, 2020;Konorski & Szwejkowska, 1956). Recent studies show that counterconditioning therapies have greater efficacy (Engelhard et al, 2014;Kerkhof et al, 2011;Raes & De Raedt, 2012) and resistance to relapse (Kang et al, 2018) than exposure therapies based on extinction procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surprise-induced enhancements in the associability of Pavlovian cues facilitate learning across behavior systems

Márquez

Loewinger

Vargas

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surprising violations of outcome expectancies have long been known to enhance the associability of Pavlovian cues; that is, the rate at which the cue enters into further associations. The adaptive value of such enhancements resides in promoting new learning in the face of uncertainty. However, it is unclear whether associability enhancements reflect increased associative plasticity within a particular behavior system, or whether they can facilitate learning between a cue and any arbitrary outcome, as suggested by attentional models of conditioning. Here, we show evidence consistent with the latter hypothesis. Violating the outcome expectancies generated by a cue in an appetitive setting (feeding behavior system) facilitated subsequent learning about the cue in an aversive setting (defense behavior system). In addition to shedding light on the nature of associability enhancements, our findings offer the neuroscientist a behavioral tool to dissociate their neural substrates from those of other, behavior system- or valence-specific changes. Moreover, our results present an opportunity to utilize associability enhancements to the advantage of counterconditioning procedures in therapeutic contexts.

show abstract

“… 13 Multiple neurotransmitters (norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine) and brain regions (amygdala, hippocampdus an locus ceurelus) are involved in the response to noise triggers. 14 There is a risk for sensitisation (rather than habituation or desensitisation) if the noise trigger evokes a fear response; this is mitigated by appropriate recognition of fear by dog owners, anxiolytic treatment and counterconditioning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of repeated dosing of a dexmedetomidine oromucosal gel for treatment of noise aversion in dogs over a series of noise events

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNoise aversion is a common behavioural disorder in dogs; affected dogs show fear behaviours in response to noise stimuli. Pharmacological treatment is effective for many dogs; clinical reports suggest anxiolytic treatment lowers the need for treatment over time. We aimed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine oromucosal gel for dogs with noise aversion over a series of noise events. Furthermore, we evaluated burden of care for owners of dogs with noise aversion via questionnaire.MethodsOwners of enrolled dogs completed records for 10 noise events indicating whether their dog received dexmedetomidine gel and pretreatment and post-treatment anxiety scores; adverse events were noted. Owners were queried about burden of care.ResultsTwenty-two client-owned dogs completed recordings for 10 events. Logistic regression results showed a significant effect for time of event with decreased probability of receiving treatment for subsequent events (OR=0.75, P=0.0017). Within an event, significant improvement in anxiety was seen (median improvement 11 points; paired Wilcoxon; P<0.0001). We found overall burden of care was manageable, yet many owners agreed with statements regarding frustration (42 per cent), stress (46 per cent), guilt (42 per cent) and sadness (75 per cent) about their dog’s condition.ConclusionsRepeated use of dexmedetomidine gel for noise events resulted in decreased need for administration. Burden of care is important to discuss with clients.

show abstract

Behavioral and neural processes in counterconditioning: Past and future directions

Cited by 64 publications

References 123 publications

No differences in return of pain-related fear after extinction and counterconditioning.

No differences in return of pain-related fear after extinction and counterconditioning.

Surprise-induced enhancements in the associability of Pavlovian cues facilitate learning across behavior systems

Evaluation of repeated dosing of a dexmedetomidine oromucosal gel for treatment of noise aversion in dogs over a series of noise events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About