Differential aversive learning enhances orientation discrimination

Abstract

A number of recent studies have documented rapid changes in behavioural sensory acuity induced by aversive learning in the olfactory and auditory modalities. The effect of aversive learning on the discrimination of low-level features in the visual system of humans remains unclear. Here, we used a psychophysical staircase procedure to estimate discrimination thresholds for oriented grating stimuli, before and after differential aversive learning. We discovered that when a target grating orientation was conditioned with an aversive loud noise, it subsequently led to an improvement of discrimination acuity in nearly all subjects. However, no such change was observed in a control group conditioned to an orientation shifted by ±90° from the target. Our findings cannot be explained by contextual learning or sensitisation factors. The results converge with those reported in the olfactory modality and provide further evidence that early sensory systems can be rapidly modified by recently experienced reinforcement histories.

Fear-Related Signals in the Primary Visual Cortex

“…Neuronal responses in the primary visual cortex (V1) are driven by simple stimuli, but these stimulusevoked responses can be markedly modulated by non-sensory factors, such as attention and reward [1], and shaped by perceptual training [2]. In reallife situations, neutral visual stimuli can become emotionally tagged by experience, resulting in altered perceptual abilities to detect and discriminate these stimuli [3][4][5]. Human imaging [4] and electroencephalography (EEG) studies [6][7][8][9] have shown that visual fear learning (the acquisition of aversive emotion associated with a visual stimulus) affects the activities in visual cortical areas as early as in V1.…”

Visuocortical tuning to a threat-related feature persists after extinction and consolidation of conditioned fear

“…The sample size was determined based on previous electroencephalography/magnetoencephalography fear conditioning studies 21,25,44,67 with samples ranging from N = 15 to 21. We also considered sample sizes common in perceptual 26 , pharmacological 68 , and functional brain imaging studies 69 of human fear conditioning and return-of-fear phenomena (N = 16 to N = 20, per group). The study protocol with all procedures and methods was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Osnabrück and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.…”

“…Simultaneously, responses to non-predictive CS− (safety cues) are inhibited 24,25 . This visual processing bias is linked to improved perceptual discrimination 26 . Importantly however, it is not clear if the changes in visual processing measured during the learning process are temporary or if they are part of a long-term memory trace.…”

Effects of Experience on Spatial Frequency Tuning in the Visual System: Behavioral, Visuocortical, and Alpha-band Responses

“…By contrast, when quantifying parietal ssVEP amplitudes as a proxy of attention system engagement, McTeague et al observed a pattern of generalization rather than sharpening, with ssVEP amplitude responses to the CS+ orientation amplified and amplitudes gradually decreasing along with decreasing orientation similarity. A separate investigation (Rhodes, Ruiz, Ríos, Nguyen, & Miskovic, 2018) revealed that aversively conditioning grating orientations improves discrimination thresholds for orientations paired with an aversive noise compared with nonpaired orientations. Following directly upon the findings outlined above, this study employed a paradigm with spatial frequency, rather than orientation, as the critical manipulated feature.…”