Extinction and the necessity or non-necessity of anticipating reward on nonrewarded trials

Capaldi, E. J.; Ziff, David R.; Godbout, R. C.

doi:10.3758/bf03332334

Cited by 38 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Small-trial experiments have also shown that nonreward followed by rewarded trials results in a PREE when the nonreward trials were not preceded by rewarded ones, precluding the possibility of rf being elicited on the nonreward trials (Capaldi & Waters, 1970;Capaldi, Ziff, & Godbout, 1970). Thus, the expectancy of reward on nonreward PRF trials does affect the magnitude of the PREE, but does not, by itself, determine the existence of the PREE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to determine the importance of the developmen t of expectancy of reward prior to partial reward trials; rats were given 20 continuously reinforced trials prior to 20 partially reinforced trials (CRF-PRF) and compared to Ss given only 20 partially reinforced trials (PRF). Control groups received 20 or 40 continuously reinforced trials to determine the effect of differing numbers of acquisition trials. Results showed that terminal acquisition differences were minimal in the run segment of the alley and that Group CRF-PRF was more resistant to extinction than Group PRF, and both were more resistant to extinction than the CRF-20 and CRF-40 groups, which did not differ from each other. These results were interpreted as supporting the notion that the expectancy of reward on nomeward trials during partial reinforcement acquisition is a determiner of the magnitude of the partial reinforcement extinction effect.The frustration explanation of the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) requires that the expectancy of reward (rr) be developed first so that later primary frustration (R F ) will occur on nonreward trials and subsequently the anticipation of frustration (rf) and its stimulus consequence (Sf) will be conditioned to approach (Amsel, 1967). If Sf has not been conditioned to approach at the start of extinction, then the PREE will not occur.Capaldi's sequential hypothesis requires only that nonreinforced trials be followed by a reinforced running trial in order to produce a PREE (Capaldi, 1966(Capaldi, , 1967. No mention is made of the necessity of establishing an expectancy of reward prior to partial reinforcement in order for PREE to occur, although recently Waters (1970) andCapaldi, Berg, andSparling (1971) have considered the possible importance of some form of frustration during PRF acquisition in governing resistance to extinction. Sutherland and Mackintosh (1971) claim that continuous reinforcement (establishing rr) prior to partial reinforcement training will reduce the PREE relative to a condition where only partial reinforcement training is given. This prediction is based on the notion that a determiner of the PREE is the number of stimulus analyzers which are switched in and that continuous reinforcement will strengthen only one analyzer and produce less resistance to extinction because only responses to this analyzer need to be weakened for

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case, Capaldi's (1967) sequential theory would appear to be the most appropriate one. The predictive power of the primary frustration analysis is obvious, however, and recent attempts (e.g., Capaldi & Waters, 1970;Capaldi, Ziff, & Godbout, 1970) to use frustration within a sequential framework would seem to be a promising approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frustration considerations of the small-trials partial reinforcement effect: Experience with nonreward and intertrial reinforcement.

Brooks¹

1971

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Another important difference may be that Kindt and colleagues use higher reinforcement rates than Miller and colleagues did. In human threat conditioning, partial reinforcement rates are generally used because higher reinforcement rates result in very rapid extinction learning if threat-predictive cues are not reinforced in subsequent test sessions (Capaldi et al 1970; LaBar et al 1998; Phelps et al 2004). An additional difference is the explicitness of task instructions.…”

Section: Biological Interventions Targeting Reconsolidationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translational Approaches Targeting Reconsolidation

Kroes

Schiller

LeDoux

et al. 2015

Translational Neuropsychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maladaptive learned responses and memories contribute to psychiatric disorders that constitute a significant socio-economic burden. Primary treatment methods teach patients to inhibit maladaptive responses, but do not get rid of the memory itself, which explains why many patients experience a return of symptoms even after initially successful treatment. This highlights the need to discover more persistent and robust techniques to diminish maladaptive learned behaviours. One potentially promising approach is to alter the original memory, as opposed to inhibiting it, by targeting memory reconsolidation. Recent research shows that reactivating an old memory results in a period of memory flexibility and requires restorage, or reconsolidation, for the memory to persist. This reconsolidation period allows a window for modification of a specific old memory. Renewal of memory flexibility following reactivation holds great clinical potential as it enables targeting reconsolidation and changing of specific learned responses and memories that contribute to maladaptive mental states and behaviours. Here, we will review translational research on non-human animals, healthy human subjects, and clinical populations aimed at altering memories by targeting reconsolidation using biological treatments (electrical stimulation, noradrenergic antagonists) or behavioural interference (reactivation–extinction paradigm). Both approaches have been used successfully to modify aversive and appetitive memories, yet effectiveness in treating clinical populations has been limited. We will discuss that memory flexibility depends on the type of memory tested and the brain regions that underlie specific types of memory. Further, when and how we can most effectively reactivate a memory and induce flexibility is largely unclear. Finally, the development of drugs that can target reconsolidation and are safe for use in humans would optimize cross-species translations. Increasing the understanding of the mechanism and limitations of memory flexibility upon reactivation should help optimize efficacy of treatments for psychiatric patients.

show abstract

Extinction and the necessity or non-necessity of anticipating reward on nonrewarded trials

Cited by 38 publications

References 15 publications

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Frustration considerations of the small-trials partial reinforcement effect: Experience with nonreward and intertrial reinforcement.

Translational Approaches Targeting Reconsolidation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About