Blocking and enhancement of fear conditioning by appetitive CSs

Goodman, Joel H.; Fowler, Harry

doi:10.3758/bf03212311

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this experiment confirm superconditioning of fear to a neutral stimulus presented in compound with an appetitive CS (Dickinson, 1977;Goodman & Fowler, 1983), which is consistent with a key prediction of the associative opponent model (Dickinson & Dearing, 1979;Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Konorski, 1967). They have also demonstrated that superconditioning depended critically upon the visual CS having been established as an appetitive excitor because it was not observed when the CS had been unpaired with food in Stage I.…”

Section: Experiments 2asupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Pavlovian superconditioning allows one such separation. Superconditioning refers to the augmentation of learning that occurs to a neutral CS when it is conditioned in compound with a conditioned inhibitor (Rescorla, 1981), or a conditioned excitor of contrasted affective value (Dickinson, 1977;Goodman & Fowler, 1983). Experiments 2a-2c addressed this possibility.…”

Section: Experiments 2a 2b and 2cmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Appetitive–aversive interactions in Pavlovian fear conditioning.

Nasser¹,

McNally²

2012

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of value coding and salience coding neurons in the mammalian brain, including in habenula and ventral tegmental area, has sparked considerable interest in the interactions that occur between Pavlovian appetitive and aversive conditioning. Here we studied these appetitive-aversive interactions at the behavioral level by assessing the learning that occurs when a Pavlovian appetitive conditioned stimulus (conditional stimulus, CS) serves as a CS for shock in Pavlovian fear conditioning. A Pavlovian appetitive CS was retarded in the rate at which it could be transformed into a fear CS (counterconditioning), but the presence of the appetitive CS augmented fear learning to a concurrently presented neutral CS (superconditioning). Retardation of fear learning was not alleviated by manipulations designed to restore the associability of the appetitive CS before fear conditioning but was alleviated by manipulations designed to increase the aversive quality of the shock unconditioned stimulus (US). These findings are consistent with opponent interactions between the appetitive and aversive motivational systems and provide a behavioral approach for assessing the neural correlates of these appetitive-aversive interactions.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 2asupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Experiments 2a 2b and 2cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appetitive–aversive interactions in Pavlovian fear conditioning.

Nasser¹,

McNally²

2012

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an oversimplification, but some behavioral evidence that it is nonetheless reasonable comes from animal learning experiments in which a stimulus that predicts the absence of an otherwise expected reward (a conditioned inhibitor for reward) can, when subsequently presented together with a neutral stimulus and a shock, block the learning of an association between the neutral stimulus and the aversive outcome (Dickinson & Dearing, 1979;Goodman & Fowler, 1983). This is presumably because the conditioned inhibitor, predictive of a different but still aversive outcome, is assumed to account for the shock.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Reward Prediction in TD Models of the Dopamine System

Daw

Touretzky

2002

Neural Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the relationship between long-term reward predictions and slow-timescale neural activity in temporal difference (TD) models of the dopamine system. Such models attempt to explain how the activity of dopamine (DA) neurons relates to errors in the prediction of future rewards. Previous models have been mostly restricted to short-term predictions of rewards expected during a single, somewhat artificially defined trial. Also, the models focused exclusively on the phasic pause-and-burst activity of primate DA neurons; the neurons' slower, tonic background activity was assumed to be constant. This has led to difficulty in explaining the results of neurochemical experiments that measure indications of DA release on a slow timescale, results that seem at first glance inconsistent with a reward prediction model. In this article, we investigate a TD model of DA activity modified so as to enable it to make longer-term predictions about rewards expected far in the future. We show that these predictions manifest themselves as slow changes in the baseline error signal, which we associate with tonic DA activity. Using this model, we make new predictions about the behavior of the DA system in a number of experimental situations. Some of these predictions suggest new computational explanations for previously puzzling data, such as indications from microdialysis studies of elevated DA activity triggered by aversive events.

show abstract

“…Moreover, by the transreinforcer blocking assay, conditioned excitors and inhibitors of opposite affective classes engage a common motivational system. A frustrative CS, pretrained to predict the absence of an appetitive food US, can block aversive conditioning with a shock US in rats (Dickinson & Dearing, 1979;Goodman & Fowler, 1983).…”

Section: Appetitive-aversive Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%