Safety Learning in Anxiety, Pavlovian Conditioned Inhibition and COVID Concerns

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.

From safety to frustration: The neural substrates of inhibitory learning in aversive and appetitive conditioning procedures

Inhibitory associative learning counters the effects of excitatory learning, whether appetitively or aversively motivated. Moreover, the affective responses accompanying the inhibitory associations are of opponent valence to the excitatory conditioned responses. Inhibitors for negative aversive outcomes (e.g. shock) signal safety, while inhibitors for appetitive outcomes (e.g. food reward) elicit frustration and/or disappointment. This raises the question as to whether studies using appetitive and aversive conditioning procedures should demonstrate the same neural substrates for inhibitory learning. We review the neural substrates of appetitive and aversive inhibitory learning as measured in different procedural variants and in the context of the underpinning excitatory conditioning on which it depends. The mesocorticolimbic dopamine pathways, retrosplenial cortex and hippocampus are consistently implicated in inhibitory learning. Further neural substrates identified in some procedural variants may be related to the specific motivation of the learning task and modalities of the learning cues. Finally, we consider the translational implications of our understanding of the neural substrates of inhibitory learning, for obesity and addictions as well as for anxiety disorders.