Pain predictability reverses valence ratings of a relief-associated stimulus

Evaluative Conditioning: Past, Present, and Future

Evaluative conditioning (EC) research investigates changes in the evaluation of a stimulus after co-occurrence with an affective stimulus. To explain the motivation behind this research, this review begins with an overview of the history of EC research, followed by a summary of the state of the art with respect to three key questions. First, how should EC procedures be used to influence evaluation? We provide a guide based on evidence concerning the functional properties of EC effects. Second, how does the EC effect occur? We discuss the possible mediating cognitive processes and their automaticity. Third, are EC effects ubiquitous outside the lab? We discuss the evidence for the external validity of EC research. We conclude that the most important open questions pertain to the relevance of EC to everyday life and to the level of control that characterizes the processes that mediate the EC effect after people notice the stimulus co-occurrence.

The skin conductance response indicating pain relief is independent of self or social influence on pain

Pain relief is defined as the ease of pain and is thus highly relevant for clinical applications and everyday life. Given that pain relief is based on the cessation of an aversive pain experience, it is reasonable to assume that pain relief learning would also be shaped by factors that alter subjective and physiological pain responses, such as social presence or a feeling of control. To date, it remains unclear whether and how factors that shape autonomic pain responses might affect pain relief learning. Here, we investigated how pain relief learning is shaped by two important factors known to modulate pain responses, i.e. social influence and controllability of pain. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded while participants learned to associate a formerly neutral stimulus with pain relief under three different pain conditions. In the social‐influence condition (N = 34), the pain stimulation could be influenced by another person’s decisions. In the self‐influence condition (N = 31), the participants themselves could influence the pain stimulation. Finally, in the no‐influence condition (N = 32), pain stimulation was simply delivered without any influence. According to our results, the SCRs elicited by the stimulus that was associated with pain relief were significantly smaller compared to the SCRs elicited by a neutral control stimulus, indicating pain relief learning. However, there was no significant difference in the pain relief learning effect across the groups. These results suggest that physiological pain relief learning in humans is not significantly influenced by social influence and pain controllability.

The contents of this page will be shown on the eTOC on the online version only. It will not be published as part of the article PDF. Subjective and physiological pain responses can be altered by social support or pain controllability. Pain relief strongly depends on the perceived pain, but we found that it is less influenceable. Neither social nor self‐influence changed the magnitude of physiological pain‐relief responses. We conclude that pain relief is a basic mechanism not easily influenced by circumstantial manipulations.

Reinforcement signaling of punishment versus relief in fruit flies

Painful events establish opponent memories: cues that precede pain are remembered negatively, whereas cues that follow pain, thus coinciding with relief are recalled positively. How do individual reinforcement-signaling neurons contribute to this “timing-dependent valence-reversal?” We addressed this question using an optogenetic approach in the fruit fly. Two types of fly dopaminergic neuron, each comprising just one paired cell, indeed established learned avoidance of odors that preceded their photostimulation during training, and learned approach to odors that followed the photostimulation. This is in striking parallel to punishment versus relief memories reinforced by a real noxious event. For only one of these neuron types, both effects were strong enough for further analyses. Notably, interfering with dopamine biosynthesis in these neurons partially impaired the punishing effect, but not the relieving after-effect of their photostimulation. We discuss how this finding constraints existing computational models of punishment versus relief memories and introduce a new model, which also incorporates findings from mammals. Furthermore, whether using dopaminergic neuron photostimulation or a real noxious event, more prolonged punishment led to stronger relief. This parametric feature of relief may also apply to other animals and may explain particular aspects of related behavioral dysfunction in humans.

Independent natural genetic variation of punishment- versus relief-memory

A painful event establishes two opponent memories: cues that are associated with pain onset are remembered negatively, whereas cues that coincide with the relief at pain offset acquire positive valence. Such punishment- versus relief-memories are conserved across species, including humans, and the balance between them is critical for adaptive behaviour with respect to pain and trauma. In the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster as a study case, we found that both punishment- and relief-memories display natural variation across wild-derived inbred strains, but they do not covary, suggesting a considerable level of dissociation in their genetic effectors. This provokes the question whether there may be heritable inter-individual differences in the balance between these opponent memories in man, with potential psycho-clinical implications.

Don't fear 'fear conditioning': Methodological considerations for the design and analysis of studies on human fear acquisition, extinction, and return of fear

The so-called 'replicability crisis' has sparked methodological discussions in many areas of science in general, and in psychology in particular. This has led to recent endeavours to promote the transparency, rigour, and ultimately, replicability of research. Originating from this zeitgeist, the challenge to discuss critical issues on terminology, design, methods, and analysis considerations in fear conditioning research is taken up by this work, which involved representatives from fourteen of the major human fear conditioning laboratories in Europe. This compendium is intended to provide a basis for the development of a common procedural and terminology framework for the field of human fear conditioning. Whenever possible, we give general recommendations. When this is not feasible, we provide evidence-based guidance for methodological decisions on study design, outcome measures, and analyses. Importantly, this work is also intended to raise awareness and initiate discussions on crucial questions with respect to data collection, processing, statistical analyses, the impact of subtle procedural changes, and data reporting specifically tailored to the research on fear conditioning.

Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors 7 within the Nucleus Accumbens are Involved in Relief Learning in Rats

Relief learning is an appetitive association of a formally neutral cue with relief induced by the offset of an aversive stimulus. Since the nucleus accumbens mediates relief learning and accumbal metabotropic glutamate receptors 7 (mGluR7) modulate appetitive-like processes, we hypothesized that accumbal mGluR7 may be involved in the modulation of relief learning. Therefore, we injected the allosteric mGluR7 agonist AMN082 into the nucleus accumbens and tested the effects of these injections on acquisition and expression of relief memory, as well as on the reactivity to electric stimuli. AMN082 injections blocked acquisition but not expression of relief memory. In addition, accumbal AMN082 injections strongly reduced the locomotor reactivity to electric stimuli indicating antinociceptive effects. These antinociceptive effects might be causal for the blockade of relief learning after AMN082 injections. Taken together, the present study indicates that functional activation of accumbal mGluR7 has antinociceptive effects that interfere with relief learning.

When does pleasure start after the end of pain? The time course of relief

Painful events are suggested to elicit two opponent responses: a negatively valenced and a positively valenced process triggered by their onset and termination, respectively. Consequently, stimuli (conditioned stimulus, CS) associated with pain onset (unconditioned stimulus, US) provoke defensive responses like startle potentiation, while stimuli associated with pain termination elicit appetitive responses like startle attenuation. Here we summarize four studies elucidating the time course of the relief following the termination of a painful US. In these studies, the timing of a relief-associated stimulus (reliefCS) presented after a painful US was varied from immediately (Study1), 3 seconds (Study4), or 6 seconds (Study2 and 3) after the US. Responses to these relief CSs were compared also with responses to a stimulus presented before the US (fearCS), and a third stimulus (safetyCS) that was never associated with the US. The synopsis of these studies reveals that the timing of the reliefCS is crucial to turn a defensive response into an appetitive response. Namely, the reliefCS immediately following the US-induced startle potentiation and negative valence (Study1); 3 seconds later, the startle response was slightly less potentiated and the ratings a little less negative (Study4); finally, the reliefCS presented 6 seconds after the US caused startle attenuation (Study2 and 3) and positively valenced ratings (Study3). In sum, the observed time course of relief closely follows the predictions of opponent process theory. This means that relief may be a reinforcer that elicits conditioned appetitive behavior, but its reinforcing properties strongly depend on its temporal relation to the aversive event.

Generalization of Contextual Fear in Humans

Enhanced fear responses to cues, which were not associated with the threat but share perceptual characteristics with the threat signal, indicate generalization of conditioned fear. Here, we investigated for the first time generalization processes in contextual fear conditioning. Thirty-two participants were guided through two virtual offices (acquisition phases). Mildly painful electric shocks (unconditioned stimulus, US) were unpredictably delivered in one office (anxiety context, CTX+), but never in the other office (safety context, CTX-). During the generalization test, participants were guided through CTX+, CTX-, and the generalization context (G-CTX), which contained features of both the CTX+ and the CTX-, but no US was delivered. We found successful contextual fear conditioning (i.e., the CTX+ compared to the CTX- elicited potentiated startle responses and was rated with more negative valence, higher arousal and higher anxiety). Importantly, implicit and explicit responses dissociated in the generalization test. Thus, participants rated the G-CTX as more arousing and anxiogenic than the CTX- indicating anxiety generalization, but they showed enhanced startle responses to the CTX+ only, while the G-CTX and the CTX- did not differ. In summary, healthy participants on an explicit level responded to the generalization context like to the anxiety context, but on an implicit level responded to the generalization context like to the safety context. Possibly, this dissociation suggests distinct and specific generalization processes underlying contextual fear.

Appetitive vs. Aversive conditioning in humans

In classical conditioning, an initially neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) becomes associated with a biologically salient event (unconditioned stimulus, US), which might be pain (aversive conditioning) or food (appetitive conditioning). After a few associations, the CS is able to initiate either defensive or consummatory responses, respectively. Contrary to aversive conditioning, appetitive conditioning is rarely investigated in humans, although its importance for normal and pathological behaviors (e.g., obesity, addiction) is undeniable. The present study intents to translate animal findings on appetitive conditioning to humans using food as an US. Thirty-three participants were investigated between 8 and 10 am without breakfast in order to assure that they felt hungry. During two acquisition phases, one geometrical shape (avCS+) predicted an aversive US (painful electric shock), another shape (appCS+) predicted an appetitive US (chocolate or salty pretzel according to the participants' preference), and a third shape (CS-) predicted neither US. In a extinction phase, these three shapes plus a novel shape (NEW) were presented again without US delivery. Valence and arousal ratings as well as startle and skin conductance (SCR) responses were collected as learning indices. We found successful aversive and appetitive conditioning. On the one hand, the avCS+ was rated as more negative and more arousing than the CS- and induced startle potentiation and enhanced SCR. On the other hand, the appCS+ was rated more positive than the CS- and induced startle attenuation and larger SCR. In summary, we successfully confirmed animal findings in (hungry) humans by demonstrating appetitive learning and normal aversive learning.

How absent negativity relates to affect and motivation: an integrative relief model

The present paper concerns the motivational underpinnings and behavioral correlates of the prevention or stopping of negative stimulation – a situation referred to as relief. Relief is of great theoretical and applied interest. Theoretically, it is tied to theories linking affect, emotion, and motivational systems. Importantly, these theories make different predictions regarding the association between relief and motivational systems. Moreover, relief is a prototypical antecedent of counterfactual emotions, which involve specific cognitive processes compared to factual or mere anticipatory emotions. Practically, relief may be an important motivator of addictive and phobic behaviors, self destructive behaviors, and social influence. In the present paper, we will first provide a review of conflicting conceptualizations of relief. We will then present an integrative relief model (IRMO) that aims at resolving existing theoretical conflicts. We then review evidence relevant to distinctive predictions regarding the moderating role of various procedural features of relief situations. We conclude that our integrated model results in a better understanding of existing evidence on the affective and motivational underpinnings of relief, but that further evidence is needed to come to a more comprehensive evaluation of the viability of IRMO.

Pain-relief learning in flies, rats, and man: basic research and applied perspectives

Memories relating to a painful, negative event are adaptive and can be stored for a lifetime to support preemptive avoidance, escape, or attack behavior. However, under unfavorable circumstances such memories can become overwhelmingly powerful. They may trigger excessively negative psychological states and uncontrollable avoidance of locations, objects, or social interactions. It is therefore obvious that any process to counteract such effects will be of value. In this context, we stress from a basic-research perspective that painful, negative events are "Janus-faced" in the sense that there are actually two aspects about them that are worth remembering: What made them happen and what made them cease. We review published findings from fruit flies, rats, and man showing that both aspects, respectively related to the onset and the offset of the negative event, induce distinct and oppositely valenced memories: Stimuli experienced before an electric shock acquire negative valence as they signal upcoming punishment, whereas stimuli experienced after an electric shock acquire positive valence because of their association with the relieving cessation of pain. We discuss how memories for such punishment- and relief-learning are organized, how this organization fits into the threat-imminence model of defensive behavior, and what perspectives these considerations offer for applied psychology in the context of trauma, panic, and nonsuicidal self-injury.