Effects of appetitive discriminative stimuli on avoidance behavior.

Grossen, Neal E.; Kostansek, David J.; Bolles, Robert C.

doi:10.1037/h0027780

Cited by 78 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, approach responses rewarded by food are readily disrupted by the presentation of a distal cue associated with aversive footshock (Estes and Skinner, 1941). Conversely, the presentation of a cue signaling food disrupts avoidance behavior guided by another cue signaling footshock (Grossen et al, 1969). Strikingly, the presentation of cues signaling food appears to elicit the same affective quality as the omission of footshock, because simultaneous presentations of food-signaling cue and shock omission cue have additive effects on approach behavior (Grossen et al, 1969).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Drug Reward Motivation and Reinfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurocircuitry of drug reward

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, neuroscientists have produced profound conceptual and mechanistic advances on the neurocircuitry of reward and substance use disorders. Here, we will provide a brief review of intracranial drug self-administration and optogenetic self-stimulation studies that identified brain regions and neurotransmitter systems involved in drug- and reward-related behaviors. Also discussed is a theoretical framework that helps to understand the functional properties of the circuitry involved in these behaviors. The circuitry appears to be homeostatically regulated and mediate anticipatory processes that regulate behavioral interaction with the environment in response to salient stimuli. That is, abused drugs or, at least, some may act on basic motivation and mood processes, regulating behavior-environment interaction. Optogenetics and related technologies have begun to uncover detailed circuit mechanisms linking key brain regions in which abused drugs act for rewarding effects.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Framework: Drug Reward Motivation and Reinfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurocircuitry of drug reward

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After several signal-shockpairings, operant performance decreases during the signal (Davis, 1968;Estes & Skinner, 1941), with the decrease accentuated when two independently conditioned shock-signaling stimuli are presented simultaneously (Miller, 1969;Van Houten, O'Leary, & Weiss, 1970;Weiss & Emurian, 1970). In a similar manner, when an operant performance is maintained by shock avoidance, the rate of that performance decreases in the presence of a stimulus that signals food (Bull, 1970;Grossen, Kostansek, & Bolles, 1969;Overmier, Bull, & Pack, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Weiss

Schindler²

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction of opposing motivational states was measured within a design in which rats barpressed for food in one stimulus and to avoid shock in another. Tone and light discriminative stimuli (Sds) were counterbalanced over incentive conditions. Extinction eliminated responding when neither Sd was present. To minimize the influence of competing peripheral operants or reinforcer-elicited behaviors during appetitive-aversive interactions, contingency parameters were manipulated to generate similar rates and patterns of barpressing in both Sds and stimuluscompounding tests were administered in extinction. On these tests, rates in tone, light, and tone plus light (T+L) were equivalent. In contrast, when the same reinforcer (i.e., food or shock avoidance) maintained comparable training rates in tone and in light, in testing, T+ L controlled double the rates of the single stimuli-strong additive summation. These results were strikingly similar to those of single-incentive experiments concerned with the contribution of excitatory and inhibitory incentive states to the results of stimulus compounding. Simultaneously presenting two Sds whose implicit stimulus-reinforcer (S-S1) contingencies were arranged to make them, respectively, conditioned appetitive and aversive excitors (present experiment) produced test results comparable to those of two Sds whose implicit s-sr contingencies were arranged to make them both conditioned inhibitors. Reciprocal antagonism between these two motive states more than neutralizes them. It appears to produce a negative (i.e., an inhibitory) motive state. 433One of the important objectives of psychology is to understand, that is, to be able to predict and control, behavior. Unfortunately, the ability to predict when a particular operant will be emitted, and when it will not, does not necessarily reflect an appreciation of the multiple factors that could be contributing to the stimulus control generated in any particular situation. This was clearly revealed in a series of experiments in which a comparison of baseline rates to each of two discriminative stimuli (Sds) as a measure of stimulus control was supplemented by stimulus-eompounding assays in which the single Sds were presented simultaneously for the first time (Weiss, 1969, 1971Weiss & Van Ost, 1974).In those experiments, the baseline rates of three groups of rats were indistinguishable from each other in spite of the fact that each group was trained on a different threecomponent schedule. In all three groups, rats barpressed

show abstract

“…That CS also suppresses appetitive activity (e.g., Estes and Skinner 1941), punishes contingent instrumental responses (e.g., Azrin 1960; for review, see Azrin and Holz 1966), and increases avoidance responses (e.g., Rescorla and LoLordo 1965; for review, see Rescorla and Solomon 1967). In contrast, a CS paired with an attractive food US elicits consummatory reflexes and approach responses, suppresses defensive responses (e.g., Grossen et al 1969;Overmier and Bull 1970;Overmier et al 1971), reinforces contingent instrumental responses (for review, see Wike 1966;Hendry 1969;Fantino 1977), and can increase responding in Pavlovian-Instrumental tasks (e.g., Estes 1948; for review, see Holmes et al 2010). Such results have led to opponent-process theories of motivation (e.g., Konorski 1967;Bindra 1974;Gray 1975;Dickinson and Dearing 1979;Toates 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Appetitive context conditioning proactively, but transiently, interferes with expression of counterconditioned context fear

Holmes

Westbrook

2014

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments used rats to study appetitive-aversive transfer. Rats trained to eat a palatable food in a distinctive context and shocked in that context ate and did not freeze when tested 1 d later but froze and did not eat when tested 14 d later. These results were associatively mediated (Experiments 1 and 2), observed when rats were or were not food deprived (Experiments 1 and 2), and were not due to latent inhibition (Experiment 3). In contrast, rats trained to eat in the context and shocked there 13 d later froze and did not eat when tested 1 d after the shocked exposure. However, rats that received an additional eating session in the context 1 d before the shocked exposure ate and did not freeze when tested 1 d after the shocked exposure (Experiment 4). The results show that appetitive conditioning transiently interferes with aversive conditioning. They are discussed in terms of a weak context-shock association becoming stronger with the lapse of time (so-called fear incubation) or of the interference by the context -food association becoming weaker with the lapse of time.Pavlovian conditioning imbues neutral stimuli with emotional and/or motivational significance. A relatively innocuous stimulus paired with an aversive shock unconditioned stimulus (US) becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), eliciting protective reflexes and defensive responses. That CS also suppresses appetitive activity (e.g., Estes and Skinner 1941), punishes contingent instrumental responses (e.g., Azrin 1960; for review, see Azrin and Holz 1966), and increases avoidance responses (e.g., Rescorla and LoLordo 1965; for review, see Rescorla and Solomon 1967). In contrast, a CS paired with an attractive food US elicits consummatory reflexes and approach responses, suppresses defensive responses (e.g., Grossen et al. 1969;Overmier and Bull 1970;Overmier et al. 1971), reinforces contingent instrumental responses (for review, see Wike 1966;Hendry 1969;Fantino 1977), and can increase responding in Pavlovian-Instrumental tasks (e.g., Estes 1948; for review, see Holmes et al. 2010). Such results have led to opponent-process theories of motivation (e.g., Konorski 1967;Bindra 1974;Gray 1975;Dickinson and Dearing 1979;Toates 1986). These theories differ in several respects but share the view that aversive and appetitive CSs excite contrasting central motivational states or systems and that excitation of one depresses activity in the other (for review, see Dickinson and Pearce 1977).An implication of these theories is that the development of defensive responses across pairings of an appetitive CS and an aversive US will be impaired, as will approach responses across pairings of an aversive CS and an appetitive US. This impairment will occur because the motivational information originally encoded by the CS is the opposite of that appropriate to the new US. Consistent with this implication, the development of approach responses is impaired across pairings of an aversive CS and an appetitive US (e.g., Peck and Bouton 1990), as is the development of wi...

show abstract

Effects of appetitive discriminative stimuli on avoidance behavior.

Cited by 78 publications

References 9 publications

Neurocircuitry of drug reward

Neurocircuitry of drug reward

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Appetitive context conditioning proactively, but transiently, interferes with expression of counterconditioned context fear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About