Pavlovian conditioned stimulus effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific

Kruse, John M.; Overmier, J. Bruce; Konz, Wilbert A.; Rokke, Eric

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(83)90004-8

Cited by 198 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Trapold and Overmier (1972) presumed unique outcome expectancies to form part of the particular discriminative stimulus complex of the discrimination task. They further suggested that these outcome-specific expectancies have functional stimulus-like properties that can serve as a reliable cue to guide and mediate subsequent choice behavior, a suggestion that received empirical support (e.g., Kruse, Overmier, Konz, & Rokke, 1983;Peterson & Trapold, 1980). This view contrasts with the earlier two-process view that mediation by unique outcome expectancies simply provides the discriminative stimulus with general motivational properties (viz., Rescorla & Solomon, 1967).…”

Section: The Differential Outcomes Effect and The Concept Of Outcome mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In everyday life, many of our behaviors are learned and reinforced through the availability of rewarding consequences. We work to be rewarded with desirable outcomes, and different people work for different rewards. Many of us have fond memories of our favorite teacher sticking a fancy star on an assignment well done and of how we would look forward to these stickers.A key aspect of real life is that we are constantly challenged with decisions to make and, almost without exception, every choice comes with a consequence. Very often, such consequences are unique to the particular choices we have made given the presenting problems. For example, when we want specialty coffee, we learn that we can get some at Starbucks. But

show abstract

Section: The Differential Outcomes Effect and The Concept Of Outcome mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pavlovian CSs can strongly influence instrumental behavior (Rescorla and Solomon, 1967;Kruse et al, 1983). For example, presentation of a CS that has been paired with reward will, in some circumstances, potentiate instrumental responding that has been reinforced by that reward.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Reinforcer-specific Pavlovian-instrumental Tramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This potentiation of responding is reinforcer-specific: if an animal has a choice of two responses, when a CS is presented it will increase responding more on a lever that resulted in the delivery of the reward that has followed the CS than on a lever that previously led to a different reward. For example, a CS that has been paired with food pellets will cause an increase in responding more on a manipuladum that has been reinforced by the same food pellets than one that has been reinforced by a different appetitive reinforcer (Kruse et al, 1983).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Reinforcer-specific Pavlovian-instrumental Tramentioning

confidence: 99%

Lesions of the Basolateral Amygdala Disrupt Selective Aspects of Reinforcer Representation in Rats

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amygdala is known to play a role in learning about motivationally significant events. We investigated this role further by examining the effects of excitotoxic lesions of the basolateral amygdala on the ability of rats to use instrumental outcomes to direct responding (the differential outcomes effect) and on the ability of Pavlovian cues to modulate instrumental performance based on shared outcomes (reinforcer-selective Pavlovian-toinstrumental transfer). We found that basolateral amygdala (BLA) lesions did not affect the ability of rats to learn a basic instrumental conditional discrimination, but did disrupt the ability of differential outcomes to facilitate acquisition. In Pavlovianto-instrumental transfer, BLA lesions did not disrupt the basic enhancement of instrumental performance but did abolish the reinforcer specificity of that enhancement. These results suggest that the BLA is involved in the representation of the sensory aspects of motivationally significant events.Key words: appetitive conditioning; basolateral amygdala; reward; reinforcement; Pavlovian; instrumental Many studies have demonstrated that lesions of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) impair a range of forms of learning about motivationally significant events. In fear conditioning, BLA lesions produce deficits in freezing to an aversive context (Phillips and LeDoux, 1992), freezing to a specific cue that has been paired with a shock (LeDoux, 2000), conditioned punishment (Killcross et al., 1997), and fear-potentiated startle (Davis, 1992(Davis, , 2000. However, despite the well defined role of the amygdala in aversive learning, its role in appetitive tasks is much less clear. BLA lesions have no effect on many simple appetitive Pavlovian conditioning tasks, including autoshaping (Willoughby and Killcross, 1998;Parkinson et al., 2000), conditioned orienting (Holland, 1997), and conditioned magazine approach (Hatfield et al., 1996;Willoughby and Killcross, 2000). Similarly BLA lesions do not influence simple instrumental conditioning (B.W. Balleine, S. Killcross, and A. Dickinson, unpublished observations) or the nonspecific modulatory influence of Pavlovian stimuli on instrumental performance . However, in some circumstances BLA lesions do influence aspects of appetitive learning. Specifically, Hatfield et al. (1996) report a deficit in appetitive Pavlovian second-order conditioning. Although firstorder conditioning proceeded normally, the first-order conditional stimulus (CS 1 ) failed to act as a reinforcer when it is subsequently paired with a second stimulus (CS 2 ). Parallel deficits have been reported in conditioned reinforcement Burns et al., 1993). Here, BLA-lesioned and shamlesioned rats received first-order appetitive Pavlovian conditioning and then were allowed to make instrumental responses that were reinforced by presentation of the first-order CS. Sham-, but not BLA-lesioned rats came to respond more on a lever that resulted in the presentation of this CS than on a control lever.Although BLA lesions do not affect acquisitio...

show abstract

“…For instance, rats tend to increase their performance of a lever-press action that once produced food reward when non-contingently presented with a Pavlovian cue that independently signals food reward (Dickinson et al, 2000;Wassum et al, 2011). Importantly, when rats are trained on distinct pairs of stimulus-outcome (S1-O1 and S2-O2) and action-outcome (A1-O1 and A2-O2) contingencies, these stimuli also acquire the ability to bias action selection at test, such that rats selectively increase their performance of whichever instrumental action was trained with the same outcome as the eliciting stimulus (eg, S1-A1) (Corbit and Balleine, 2005;Kruse et al, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Effects of Systemic Cholinergic Receptor Blockade on Pavlovian Incentive Motivation and Goal-Directed Action Selection

Ostlund¹,

Kosheleff²,

Maidment³

2013

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reward-seeking actions can be guided by external cues that signal reward availability. For instance, when confronted with a stimulus that signals sugar, rats will prefer an action that produces sugar over a second action that produces grain pellets. Action selection is also sensitive to changes in the incentive value of potential rewards. Thus, rats that have been prefed a large meal of sucrose will prefer a grain-seeking action to a sucrose-seeking action. The current study investigated the dependence of these different aspects of action selection on cholinergic transmission. Hungry rats were given differential training with two unique stimulus-outcome (S1-O1 and S2-O2) and action-outcome (A1-O1 and A2-O2) contingencies during separate training phases. Rats were then given a series of Pavlovian-toinstrumental transfer tests, an assay of cue-triggered responding. Before each test, rats were injected with scopolamine (0, 0.03, or 0.1 mg/kg, intraperitoneally), a muscarinic receptor antagonist, or mecamylamine (0, 0.75, or 2.25 mg/kg, intraperitoneally), a nicotinic receptor antagonist. Although the reward-paired cues were capable of biasing action selection when rats were tested off-drug, both anticholinergic treatments were effective in disrupting this effect. During a subsequent round of outcome devaluation testing-used to assess the sensitivity of action selection to a change in reward value-we found no effect of either scopolamine or mecamylamine. These results reveal that cholinergic signaling at both muscarinic and nicotinic receptors mediates action selection based on Pavlovian reward expectations, but is not critical for flexibly selecting actions using current reward values.

show abstract

Pavlovian conditioned stimulus effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific

Cited by 198 publications

References 17 publications

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

Lesions of the Basolateral Amygdala Disrupt Selective Aspects of Reinforcer Representation in Rats

Differential Effects of Systemic Cholinergic Receptor Blockade on Pavlovian Incentive Motivation and Goal-Directed Action Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About