Second-Order Conditioning in Humans

Lee, Jessica C.

doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2021.672628

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the infralimbic subregion (see Figure 5, panels A.I and B.I) has been found to participate in inhibitory learning in the aversive domain, which has been repeatedly demonstrated using extinction procedures (Burgos-Robles et al, 2007;Milad & Quirk, 2002;Milad et al, 2004;Mueller et al, 2008;Quirk et al, 2000; for reviews and interpretations of conflicting results, see Giustino & Maren, 2015;. Along the same line, a recent study by Fam et al (2022) showed that inhibitory learning (and its expression) inevitably arising in second-order fear conditioning (see Lee, 2021) is impaired when silencing the infralimbic prefrontal cortex in rats. Furthermore, inactivation of the infralimbic portion of the prefrontal cortex in rats facilitates inhibitory learning from an extinction procedure in the appetitive domain (Lay et al, 2019).…”

Section: Neurobiological Underpinnings Of Inhibitory Learningmentioning

confidence: 83%

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification

Sosa¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition can be defined as a phenomenon in which an agent prevents or suppresses a behavioral state that would otherwise occur. Associative learning studies have extensively examined how experiences shape the acquisition of inhibitory behavioral tendencies across many species and situations. Associative inhibitory phenomena can be studied at various levels of analysis. One could focus on the trajectory of behavioral change involved in learning from negative statistical associations between discrete events (inhibitory learning). Alternatively, one could be interested in the effects of accumulated experience with those negative associations (conditioned inhibition). One could rather be interested in how organisms implement what they learn through experiences involving negative associations (response inhibition). Yet one could inquire into how the capacity of learning negative associations and performing accordingly varies between individuals and along time for the same individual (inhibitory control). This paper presents a tentative taxonomy addressing different levels of analysis of associative inhibitory phenomena by using different terms for each. In addition, recent evidence and certain unresolved issues at each level are thoroughly scrutinized and contrasted with prior findings. The empirical and theoretical advances made by modeling inhibition as an associative learning phenomenon have provided scaffolds for the current knowledge and emerging accounts of the topic. Some of those emerging accounts have the potential to bridge different levels of analysis and foster “cross-pollination” of ideas among broad fields beyond associative learning.

show abstract

Section: Neurobiological Underpinnings Of Inhibitory Learningmentioning

confidence: 83%

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification

Sosa¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the infralimbic subregion (see Figure 5, Panels A.I and B.I) has been found to participate in inhibitory learning in the aversive domain, which has been repeatedly demonstrated using extinction procedures (Burgos-Robles et al, 2007; Milad & Quirk, 2002; Milad et al, 2004; Mueller et al, 2008; Quirk et al, 2000; for reviews and interpretations of conflicting results, see Giustino & Maren, 2015; Quirk & Mueller, 2008). Along the same line, a recent study by Fam et al (2022) showed that inhibitory learning (and its expression) inevitably arising in second-order fear conditioning (see Lee, 2021) is impaired when silencing the infralimbic prefrontal cortex in rats. Furthermore, inactivation of the infralimbic portion of the prefrontal cortex in rats facilitates inhibitory learning from an extinction procedure in the appetitive domain (Lay et al, 2019).…”

Section: Inhibitory Learning: the Process(es) By Which Experience Lea...mentioning

confidence: 87%

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification.

Sosa¹

2024

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition can be defined as a phenomenon in which an agent prevents or suppresses a behavioral state that would otherwise occur. Associative learning studies have extensively examined how experiences shape the acquisition of inhibitory behavioral tendencies across many species and situations. Associative inhibitory phenomena can be studied at various levels of analysis. One could focus on the trajectory of behavioral change involved in learning from negative statistical associations between discrete events (inhibitory learning). Alternatively, one could be interested in the effects of accumulated experience with those negative associations (conditioned inhibition). One could rather be interested in how organisms implement what they learn through experiences involving negative associations (response inhibition). Yet one could inquire into how the capacity of learning negative associations and performing accordingly varies between individuals and along time for the same individual (inhibitory control). This paper presents a tentative taxonomy addressing different levels of analysis of associative inhibitory phenomena by using different terms for each. In addition, recent evidence and certain unresolved issues at each level are thoroughly scrutinized and contrasted with prior findings. The empirical and theoretical advances made by modeling inhibition as an associative learning phenomenon have provided scaffolds for the current knowledge and emerging accounts of the topic. Some of those emerging accounts have the potential to bridge different levels of analysis and foster "cross-pollination" of ideas among broad fields beyond associative learning.

show abstract

“…In other words, the HO was presented when participants expected the US to appear and this may have contributed to the persistence of higher-order associations. While several human higher-order conditioning studies use classical Pavlovian training procedures in which HO predicts a previously conditioned CS (see Lee, 2021 for review), different conditioning procedures have been used including sequential conditioning where distal (HO) and proximal (CS) both precede the US (Seymour et al, 2004;Pauli et al, 2019) and also different combinations of backward conditioning as in our study (Prével et al, 2016(Prével et al, , 2019. Higher-order learning in our paradigm was modeled after an animal higher-order conditioning study that used the same presentation structure (Gilboa et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hebscher et al, 2019). However, relatively few studies have investigated higher-order conditioning in humans (Pauli et al, 2019;Prével et al, 2019;Luettgau et al, 2021;see Honey and Dwyer, 2021;Lee, 2021 for a review). Even fewer have examined the neural processes of firstorder and higher-order learning in humans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Auditory Event Related Potentials Distinguish Higher-Order From First-Order Aversive Conditioning

Dhamija

Wong

Gilboa

2022

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimuli in reality rarely co-occur with primary reward or punishment to allow direct associative learning of value. Instead, value is thought to be inferred through complex higher-order associations. Rodent research has demonstrated that the formation and maintenance of first-order and higher-order associations are supported by distinct neural substrates. In this study, we explored whether this pattern of findings held true for humans. Participants underwent first-order and subsequent higher-order conditioning using an aversive burst of white noise or neutral tone as the unconditioned stimuli. Four distinct tones, initially neutral, served as first-order and higher-order conditioned stimuli. Autonomic and neural responses were indexed by pupillometry and evoked response potentials (ERPs) respectively. Conditioned aversive values of first-order and higher-order stimuli led to increased autonomic responses, as indexed by pupil dilation. Distinct temporo-spatial auditory evoked response potentials were elicited by first-order and high-order conditioned stimuli. Conditioned first-order responses peaked around 260 ms and source estimation suggested a primary medial prefrontal and amygdala source. Conversely, conditioned higher-order responses peaked around 120 ms with an estimated source in the medial temporal lobe. Interestingly, pupillometry responses to first-order conditioned stimuli were diminished after higher order training, possibly signifying concomitant incidental extinction, while responses to higher-order stimuli remained. This suggests that once formed, higher order associations are at least partially independent of first order conditioned representations. This experiment demonstrates that first-order and higher-order conditioned associations have distinct neural signatures, and like rodents, the medial temporal lobe may be specifically involved with higher-order conditioning.

show abstract

Second-Order Conditioning in Humans

Cited by 11 publications

References 41 publications

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification.

Early Auditory Event Related Potentials Distinguish Higher-Order From First-Order Aversive Conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About