Appetitive–Aversive Interactions: Superconditioning of Fear by an Appetitive CS

Affective Valence Regulates Associative Competition in Pavlovian Conditioning

Evidence suggests that, in Pavlovian conditioning, associations form between conditioned stimuli and multiple components of the unconditioned stimulus (US). It is common, for example, to regard USs as composed of sensory and affective components, the latter being either appetitive (e.g., food or water) or aversive (e.g., shock or illness) and, therefore, to suppose different USs of the same affective class activate a common affective system. Furthermore, evidence is growing for the suggestion that, in competitive learning situations, competition between predictive stimuli is primarily for association with the affective system activated by the US. Thus, a conditioned stimulus (CS) previously paired with one US will block conditioning to another CS when both are presented together and paired with a different US of the same affective class, a phenomenon called transreinforcer blocking. Importantly, similar effects have been reported when steps are taken to turn the pretrained CS into a conditioned inhibitor, which activates the opposing affective state to the excitor that it inhibits. Thus, an appetitive inhibitor can block conditioning to a second CS when they are presented together and paired with foot shock. Here we show that the same is true of an aversive inhibitor. In two experiments conducted in rats, we found evidence that an aversive inhibitor blocked conditioning to a second CS when presented in a compound and paired with food. Such findings demonstrate that affective processes and their opponency organize appetitive-aversive interactions and establish the valences on which they are based, consistent with incentive theories of Pavlovian conditioning.

Aversive motivation and cognitive control

Aversive motivation plays a prominent role in driving individuals to exert cognitive control. However, the complexity of behavioral responses attributed to aversive incentives creates significant challenges for developing a clear understanding of the neural mechanisms of this motivation-control interaction. We review the animal learning, systems neuroscience, and computational literatures to highlight the importance of experimental paradigms that incorporate both motivational context manipulations and mixed motivational components (e.g., bundling of appetitive and aversive incentives). Specifically, we postulate that to understand aversive incentive effects on cognitive control allocation, a critical contextual factor is whether such incentives are associated with negative reinforcement or punishment. We further illustrate how the inclusion of mixed motivational components in experimental paradigms enables increased precision in the measurement of aversive influences on cognitive control. A sharpened experimental and theoretical focus regarding the manipulation and assessment of distinct motivational dimensions promises to advance understanding of the neural, monoaminergic, and computational mechanisms that underlie the interaction of motivation and cognitive control.

Assessing reinforcing versus aversive consequences in a real-time secondhand smoke intervention

Few studies have examined the relative effectiveness of reinforcing versus aversive consequences at changing behavior in real-world environments. Real-time sensing devices makes it easier to investigate such questions, offering the potential to improve both intervention outcomes and theory. This research aims to describe the development of a real-time, operant theory-based secondhand smoke (SHS) intervention and compare the efficacy of aversive versus aversive plus reinforcement contingency systems. Indoor air particle monitors were placed in the households of 253 smokers for approximately three months. Participants were assigned to a measurement-only control group (N = 129) or one of the following groups: 1.) aversive only (AO, N = 71), with aversive audio/visual consequences triggered by the detection of elevated air particle measurements, or 2.) aversive plus reinforcement (AP, N = 53), with reinforcing consequences contingent on the absence of SHS added to the AO intervention. Residualized change ANCOVA analysis compared particle concentrations over time and across groups. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were also performed. After controlling for Baseline, Post-Baseline daily particle counts (F = 6.42, p = 0.002), % of time >15,000 counts (F = 7.72, p < 0.001), and daily particle events (F = 4.04, p = 0.02) significantly differed by study group. Nearly all control versus AO/AP pair-wise comparisons were statistically significant. No significant differences were found for AO versus AP groups. The aversive feedback system reduced SHS, but adding reinforcing consequences did not further improve outcomes. The complexity of real-world environments requires the nuances of these two contingency systems continue to be explored, with this study demonstrating that real-time sensing technology can serve as a platform for such research.

An appetitive conditioned stimulus enhances fear acquisition and impairs fear extinction

Four experiments used between- and within-subject designs to examine appetitive–aversive interactions in rats. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of an excitatory appetitive conditioned stimulus (CS) on acquisition and extinction of conditioned fear. In Experiment 1, a CS shocked in a compound with an appetitive excitor (i.e., a stimulus previously paired with sucrose) underwent greater fear conditioning than a CS shocked in a compound with a neutral stimulus. Conversely, in Experiment 2, a CS extinguished in a compound with an appetitive excitor underwent less extinction than a CS extinguished in a compound with a neutral stimulus. Experiments 3 and 4 compared the amount of fear conditioning to an appetitive excitor and a familiar but neutral target CS when the compound of these stimuli was paired with shock. In each experiment, more fear accrued to the appetitive excitor than to the neutral CS. These results show that an appetitive excitor influences acquisition and extinction of conditioned fear to a neutral CS and itself undergoes a greater associative change than the neutral CS across compound conditioning. They are discussed with respect to the role of motivational information in regulating an associative change in appetitive–aversive interactions.

The combination of appetitive and aversive reinforcers and the nature of their interaction during auditory learning

Learned changes in behavior can be elicited by either appetitive or aversive reinforcers. It is, however, not clear whether the two types of motivation, (approaching appetitive stimuli and avoiding aversive stimuli) drive learning in the same or different ways, nor is their interaction understood in situations where the two types are combined in a single experiment. To investigate this question we have developed a novel learning paradigm for Mongolian gerbils, which not only allows rewards and punishments to be presented in isolation or in combination with each other, but also can use these opposite reinforcers to drive the same learned behavior. Specifically, we studied learning of tone-conditioned hurdle crossing in a shuttle box driven by either an appetitive reinforcer (brain stimulation reward) or an aversive reinforcer (electrical footshock), or by a combination of both. Combination of the two reinforcers potentiated speed of acquisition, led to maximum possible performance, and delayed extinction as compared to either reinforcer alone. Additional experiments, using partial reinforcement protocols and experiments in which one of the reinforcers was omitted after the animals had been previously trained with the combination of both reinforcers, indicated that appetitive and aversive reinforcers operated together but acted in different ways: in this particular experimental context, punishment appeared to be more effective for initial acquisition and reward more effective to maintain a high level of conditioned responses (CRs). The results imply that learning mechanisms in problem solving were maximally effective when the initial punishment of mistakes was combined with the subsequent rewarding of correct performance.

Inhibition and superconditioning

Superconditioning is said to occur when learning an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) isfacilitated by pairing the CS with the US in the presence of a previously established conditioned inhibitor. Previous demonstrations of superconditioning have been criticized because their control conditions have allowed alternative interpretations. Using a within-subjects autoshaping procedure, the present study unambiguously demonstrated superconditioning. The results support the view that super-conditioning is the symmetric opposite of blocking.

The effects of scopolamine, diazepam, and lorazepam on working memory in pigeons: an analysis of reinforcement procedures and sample problem type

Two groups of pigeons were trained on a delayed-matching-to-sample (DMTS) task with both identity and symbolic problems, that had either a) specific outcomes correlated (differential group) or b) outcomes uncorrelated (nondifferential group), for each correct sample-choice sequence. After reaching a criterion of 90% correct at the 0 s delay, subjects were tested under saline, methylscopolamine (0.03 mg/kg), scopolamine (0.007, 0.015, 0.03 mg/kg), diazepam (0.0, 1.0, 1.75, 2.5 mg/kg), and lorazepam (0.0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 mg/kg) at delays of 0 to 8 s. Scopolamine, diazepam, and lorazepam at all doses impaired performance in the nondifferential group; however, in the differential group, the medium and high doses of both scopolamine and lorazepam, and only the high dose of diazepam impaired performance. The differential outcomes procedure, relative to the nondifferential procedure, enhanced retention in the non-drug state and under these amnestic drugs. Impairments observed in the differential group were a result of decreased performance only on samples correlated with a secondary reinforcer (flashing hopper light); there was no decreased performance on samples correlated with a primary reinforcer (grain). Neither group showed any differences in performance as a function of identity versus symbolic problems in a nondrug or drug state.