Retrieval practice after multiple context changes, but not long retention intervals, reduces the impact of a final context change on instrumental behavior

Abstract

Recent evidence from this laboratory suggests that a context switch after operant learning consistently results in a decrement in responding. One way to reduce this decrement is to train the response in multiple contexts. One interpretation of this result, rooted in stimulus sampling theory, is that conditioning of a greater number of common stimulus elements arising from more contexts causes better generalization to new contexts. An alternative explanation is that each change of context causes more effortful retrieval, and practice involving effortful retrieval results in learning that is better able to transfer to new situations. The current experiments were designed to differentiate between these two explanations for the first time in an animal learning and memory task. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the detrimental impact of a context change on an instrumental nose-poking response can be reduced by training the response in multiple contexts. Experiment 2 then found that a training procedure which inserted extended retention intervals between successive training sessions did not reduce the detrimental impact of a final context change. This occurred even though the inserted retention intervals had a detrimental impact on responding (and, thus, presumably retrieval) similar to the effect that context switches had in Experiment 1. Together, the results suggest that effortful retrieval practice may not be sufficient to reduce the negative impact of a context change on instrumental behavior. A common elements explanation which supposes that physical and temporal contextual cues do not overlap may account for the findings more readily.

Effect of context on the instrumental reinforcer devaluation effect produced by taste-aversion learning.

“…It is worth noting that the context appears to play multiple roles in instrumental learning. In addition to its apparent encoding with the reinforcer representation, there is a sense in which it is encoded with the response itself: When instrumental responding is trained in one context, it is often weaker when it is tested in a different context (Bouton et al, 2011(Bouton et al, , 2014Thrailkill & Bouton, 2015;Trask & Bouton, 2018). Interestingly, the strength of the association between the contextually encoded R and O representations itself does not appear to be context-dependent.…”

Extinction of instrumental (operant) learning: interference, varieties of context, and mechanisms of contextual control

“…For example, in instrumental learning, extinction of a response in S has an impact on the response in other Ss (Bouton et al, 2016; Todd et al, 2014), whereas in Pavlovian conditioning it might do so only under special conditions (Vurbic & Bouton, 2011). In addition, although the response is weakened by context change after conditioning in instrumental learning (e.g., Bouton et al, 2011, 2014; Thrailkill & Bouton, 2015; Trask & Bouton, 2018), Pavlovian responses seem to be less affected by context change; that is, responding to a CS often transfers almost perfectly across contexts (see Rosas, Todd, & Bouton, 2013, for a review). If the control of the response by the context in instrumental learning is due to the context’s direct association with the response (Thrailkill & Bouton, 2015b), this tentative difference between instrumental and Pavlovian responding may further suggest that direct context-response learning may be a mechanism of contextual control that is relatively unique to instrumental learning and thus instrumental interference.…”

“…The idea that animals might learn direct context-response associations receives additional support from other studies of contextual control. A number of experiments have established that a context switch after instrumental training can weaken the instrumental response, whether it is lever pressing, chain pulling, or nose poking (e.g., Bouton et al, 2014; Trask & Bouton, 2018), and whether the response is occasioned by a discriminative stimulus (Bouton et al, 2014) or occurs freely, without such a stimulus (e.g., Bouton et al, 2011; Thrailkill & Bouton, 2015b). This context-specificity of instrumental responding is potentially accommodated by any of the links in Panel A of Figure 1.…”

Role of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis in PTSD: Insights From Preclinical Models

“…Despite the continued economic and social burden of stress-related disorders, the molecular mechanisms underlying PTSD and other stress- and anxiety-related disorders are just now being thoroughly investigated (Insel et al, 2010; Cuthbert and Insel, 2013; Cuthbert, 2014; Insel, 2014), although common symptoms of these debilitating conditions are well known and include conditioned fear responses (Maren and Quirk, 2004; Todd et al, 2014; Giustino and Maren, 2015; Maren and Holmes, 2016; Maren, 2017; Trask et al, 2017; Ressler and Maren, 2019; Trask and Bouton, 2018). Once acquired, fear memories may span years or even decades in humans and contribute to the maintenance of fear and anxiety disorders like PTSD.…”