Impaired action-safety learning and excessive relief during avoidance in patients with anxiety disorders

Unconditioned stimulus devaluation decreases the generalization of costly safety behaviors

Safety behaviors are often maladaptive in clinical anxiety as they typically persist without realistic threat and cause various impairments. In the laboratory, safety behaviors are modelled by responses to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that reduce the occurrence of an expected aversive unconditioned stimulus (US). Preliminary evidence suggests that US devaluation, a procedure that decreases US aversiveness, devalues the threat value of the CS and thus diminishes safety behaviors to the CS. This study (n = 78) aimed to extend this finding and examined whether US-devaluation can reduce the generalization of safety behaviors to various stimuli. After acquiring safety behaviors to CSs of different categories, the US predicted by one CS category was devalued. In test, participants showed a selective reduction in safety behaviors to novel stimuli of the devalued CS category, reflecting a decrease in generalization of safety behaviors. Trait anxiety was associated with persistent generalized safety behaviors to novel stimuli of the devalued category. We discuss how US devaluation may improve treatment outcome but also the challenges of clinical translation.

Conditioned inhibition of fear and reward in male and female rats

Stimuli in our environment are not always associated with an outcome. Some of these stimuli, depending on how they are presented, may gain inhibitory value or simply be ignored. If experienced in the presence of other cues predictive of appetitive or aversive outcomes, they typically gain inhibitory value and become predictive cues indicating the absence of appetitive or aversive outcomes. In this case, these cues are referred to as conditioned inhibitors. Here, male and female Long Evans rats underwent cue discrimination training where a reward cue was paired with sucrose, a fear cue with footshock, and an inhibitor cue resulted in neither sucrose or footshock. During a subsequent summation test for conditioned inhibition of fear and reward, the inhibitor cue was presented concurrently with the reward and fear cues without any outcome, intermixed with trials of reinforced reward and fear trials. Males showed significant conditioned inhibition of freezing, while females did not, which was not dependent on estrous. Both males and females showed significant conditioned inhibition of reward. During a retardation of fear acquisition test, the inhibitor was paired with footshock and both males and females showed delayed acquisition of fear. During a retardation of reward acquisition test, the inhibitor was paired with sucrose, and females showed delayed acquisition of reward, while males did not. In summary, males and females showed significant reward-fear-inhibitor cue discrimination, conditioned inhibition of reward, and retardation of fear acquisition. The main sex difference, which was not estrous-dependent, was the lack of conditioned inhibition of freezing in females. These data imply that while the inhibitor cue gained some inhibitory value in the females, the strength of this inhibitory value may not have been great enough to effectively downregulate freezing elicited by the fear cue.