scholarly journals Reactivation of hedonic but not sensory representations in human emotional learning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mana R Ehlers ◽  
James H Kryklywy ◽  
Andre O Beukers ◽  
Sarah R Moore ◽  
Forys J Brandon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Fmri Data ◽  
Similarity Analysis ◽  
Appetitive Conditioning ◽  
Activation Patterns ◽  
The Us ◽  
Novel Variation

Learning which stimuli in our environment co-occur with painful or pleasurable events is critical for survival. Previous research has established the basic neural and behavioural mechanisms of aversive and appetitive conditioning; however, it is unclear what precisely is learned. Here we examined what aspects of the unconditioned stimulus (US), sensory and hedonic, are transferred to the conditioned stimulus (CS). To decode the content of brain activation patterns elicited during appetitive (soft touch) and aversive (painful touch) conditioning of faces, a novel variation of representational similarity analysis (RSA) based on theoretically driven representational patterns of interest (POIs) was applied to fMRI data. Once face associations were learned through conditioning, globally the CS reactivated US representational patterns showing conditioning dependent reactivation. More specifically, in higher order brain regions, the CS only reactivated hedonic but not sensory aspects of the US, suggesting that affective conditioning primarily carries forward the valence of the experience rather than its sensory origins.

scholarly journals Higher-Order Conditioning: What Is Learnt and How it Is Expressed

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Honey ◽  
Dominic M. Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Pavlovian Conditioning ◽  
Formal Analysis ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Conditioning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Conditioned Responses

Pairing a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with a motivationally significant unconditioned stimulus (US) results in the CS coming to elicit conditioned responses (CRs). The widespread significance and translational value of Pavlovian conditioning are increased by the fact that pairing two neutral CSs (A and X) enables conditioning with X to affect behavior to A. There are two traditional informal accounts of such higher-order conditioning, which build on more formal associative analyses of Pavlovian conditioning. But, higher-order conditioning and Pavlovian conditioning have characteristics that are beyond these accounts: Notably, the two are influenced in different ways by the same experimental manipulations, and both generate conditioned responses that do not reflect the US per se. Here, we present a formal analysis that sought to address these characteristics.

scholarly journals No Evaluative Conditioning Effects with Briefly Presented Stimuli

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Neutral Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
The Us

Evaluative Conditioning (EC) changes the preference towards a formerly neutral stimulus (Conditioned Stimulus; CS), by pairing it with a valent stimulus (Unconditioned Stimulus; US), in the direction of the valence of the US. When the CS is presented subliminally (i.e., too briefly to be consciously perceived), contingency awareness between CS and US can be ruled out. Hence, EC effects with subliminal CSs would support theories claiming that contingency awareness is not necessary for EC effects to occur. Recent studies reported the absence of EC with briefly presented CSs when both CS and US were presented in the visual modality, even though the CSs were identified at above-chance levels. Challenging this finding, Heycke and colleagues (2017) found some evidence for an EC effect with briefly presented visual stimuli in a cross-modal paradigm with auditory USs, but that study did not assess CS visibility. The present study attempted to replicate this EC effect with different stimuli and a CS visibility check. Overall EC for briefly presented stimuli was absent, and results from the visibility check show that an EC effect with briefly presented CSs was only found, when the CSs were identified at above-chance levels.

Propositional Versus Dual-Process Accounts of Evaluative Conditioning

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqing Hu ◽  
Bertram Gawronski ◽  
Robert Balas
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Relational Information ◽  
The Us

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is defined as the change in the evaluation of a conditioned stimulus (CS) due to its pairing with a valenced unconditioned stimulus (US). According to propositional accounts, EC effects should be qualified by the relation between the CS and the US. Dual-process accounts suggest that relational information should qualify EC effects on explicit evaluations, whereas implicit evaluations should reflect the frequency of CS–US co-occurrences. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that, when relational information was provided before the encoding of CS–US pairings, it moderated EC effects on explicit, but not implicit, evaluations. In Experiment 3, relational information moderated EC effects on both explicit and implicit evaluations when it was provided simultaneously with CS–US pairings. Frequency of CS–US pairings had no effect on implicit evaluations. Although the results can be reconciled with both propositional and dual-process accounts, they are more parsimoniously explained by propositional accounts.

Ring My Bell

2019 ◽  
pp. 303-315
Author(s):  
Patrik N. Juslin
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Affective State ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Psychological Mechanism ◽  
Classic Conditioning

This chapter considers the psychological mechanism known as evaluative conditioning. Evaluative conditioning is defined as a process whereby an emotion is evoked by a piece of music just because this stimulus has been paired, repeatedly, with other positive or negative stimuli, which are not necessarily logically connected to the music in any way. It is a special form of classic conditioning that involves the pairing of an initially neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with an affectively valenced, unconditioned stimulus (US). After the pairing, the CS acquires the ability to arouse the same affective state as the US in the perceiver. The remainder of the chapter discusses the characteristics of evaluative conditioning, the emotions that conditioning might arouse, and the role of conditioning in everyday life.

scholarly journals Simulation-based learning shapes real-life attitudes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp C. Paulus ◽  
Aroma Dabas ◽  
Annalena Felber ◽  
Roland Georg Benoit
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Life Events ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Life Attitudes ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
The Us ◽  
Familiar Person

Humans can vividly simulate hypothetical experiences. This ability draws on our memories (e.g., of familiar people and locations) to construct imaginings that resemble real-life events (e.g., of meeting a person at a location). Here, we examine the hypothesis that we also learn from such simulated episodes much like from actual experiences. Specifically, we show that the mere simulation of meeting a familiar person (unconditioned stimulus; US) at a known location (conditioned stimulus; CS) changes how people value the location. We provide key evidence that this simulation-based learning strengthens pre-existing CS-US associations and that it leads to a transfer of valence from the US to the CS. The data thus highlight a mechanism by which we learn from simulated experiences.

scholarly journals Extinction of Pavlovian Conditioning: The Influence of Trial Number and Reinforcement History

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. K. Jonas Chan ◽  
Justin Harris
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Pavlovian Conditioning ◽  
Temporal Relationship ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect ◽  
Reinforcement History ◽  
The Us ◽  
Cumulative Duration ◽  
Learning As A Process

Pavlovian conditioning is sensitive to the temporal relationship between conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US). This has motivated models that describe learning as a process that continuously updates associative strength during the trial or specifically encodes the CS-US interval. These models predict that extinction of responding is also continuous, such that response loss is proportional to the cumulative duration of exposure to the CS without the US. We review evidence showing that this prediction is incorrect, and that extinction is trial-based rather than time-based. We also present two experiments that test the importance of trials versus time on the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE), in which responding extinguishes more slowly for a CS that was inconsistently reinforced with the US than for a consistently reinforced one. We show that increasing the number of extinction trials of the partially reinforced CS, relative to the consistently reinforced CS, overcomes the PREE. However, increasing the duration of extinction trials by the same amount does not overcome the PREE. We conclude that animals learn about the likelihood of the US per trial during conditioning, and learn trial-by-trial about the absence of the US during extinction. Moreover, what they learn about the likelihood of the US during conditioning affects how sensitive they are to the absence of the US during extinction.

Unmasking latent inhibition in humans

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-395
Author(s):  
Daniel R. L. Forrest ◽  
Marius Mather ◽  
Justin A. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Latent Inhibition ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Subsequent Learning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Continuous Stream

Presentations of a to-be-conditioned stimulus (CS) on its own impairs subsequent learning when that CS is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Evidence for this latent inhibition (LI) effect in humans is said to require a “masking task” that diverts attention from the CS during preexposure. We present three experiments that demonstrate LI in humans without masking. Subjects performed a computerised task, making speeded responses to an imperative cue (the US) presented within a continuous stream of stimuli. During preexposure, a to-be-CS was presented 20 times among other stimuli, but excluding the US. Instructions ensured subjects actively monitored all stimuli at this time. This was immediately followed by the training phase, which included the US, the preexposed CS, and a novel CS. Both CSs were reliably followed by the US, but these associations were incidental to the instructed task. Nonetheless, some subjects learned the CS-US associations, responding faster when the US followed a CS than when it was unsignalled. All three experiments also found evidence for LI, in that subjects learned the novel CS-US association sooner than the preexposed CS-US association. We conclude that humans can show LI even when actively attending to the CS during preexposure.

Animal Learning of Independent and Correlated Events

1978 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. E. Wookey ◽  
R. C. Morris ◽  
R. M. Kirby
Keyword(s):  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Learned Helplessness ◽  
Present Experiment ◽  
Conditioned Response ◽  
Appetitive Conditioning ◽  
Animal Learning ◽  
Random Presentation ◽  
Attention Theory ◽  
The Us ◽  
Classically Conditioned

Evidence suggests that experience of a truly random presentation of a conditioned and unconditioned stimulus (CS and US) retards subsequent acquisition of a classically conditioned response when the CS and US are paired. In these studies, no events reliably predict the US during the first part of training. The present experiment demonstrated impairment of subsequent appetitive conditioning in rats following a random CS-US presentation, both when another predictive cue is present and when it is absent during this experience. Results are discussed with reference to “general attention” theory, and learned helplessness. However, the data support an interpretation in terms of learning a specific relationship between a particular CS and US.

scholarly journals Muscarinic ACh Receptors Contribute to Aversive Olfactory Learning inDrosophila

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryon Silva ◽  
Claudia Molina-Fernández ◽  
María Beatriz Ugalde ◽  
Eduardo I. Tognarelli ◽  
Cristian Angel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Biogenic Amine ◽  
Memory Formation ◽  
Olfactory Learning ◽  
Mushroom Bodies ◽  
Motor Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
First Time ◽  
Ach Receptors

The most studied form of associative learning inDrosophilaconsists in pairing an odorant, the conditioned stimulus (CS), with an unconditioned stimulus (US). The timely arrival of the CS and US information to a specificDrosophilabrain association region, the mushroom bodies (MB), can induce new olfactory memories. Thus, the MB is considered a coincidence detector. It has been shown that olfactory information is conveyed to the MB through cholinergic inputs that activate acetylcholine (ACh) receptors, while the US is encoded by biogenic amine (BA) systems. In recent years, we have advanced our understanding on the specific neural BA pathways and receptors involved in olfactory learning and memory. However, little information exists on the contribution of cholinergic receptors to this process. Here we evaluate for the first time the proposition that, as in mammals, muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs) contribute to memory formation inDrosophila. Our results show that pharmacological and genetic blockade of mAChRs in MB disrupts olfactory aversive memory in larvae. This effect is not explained by an alteration in the ability of animals to respond to odorants or to execute motor programs. These results show that mAChRs in MB contribute to generating olfactory memories inDrosophila.

An Associative Approach to Additivity and Maximality Effects on Blocking

2011 ◽  
pp. 57-80
Author(s):  
Néstor A. Schmajuk ◽  
Munir G. Kutlu
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Mechanistic Explanation ◽  
Associative Model ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
The Us ◽  
Value Additivity ◽  
Associative Models

Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray (SLG, 1996) introduced an attentional-associative model able to describe a large number of classical paradigms. As other models, the SLG model describes blocking in terms of the competition between the blocker and the blocked conditioned stimulus (CS) to gain association with the unconditioned stimulus (US) or outcome. Recent data suggest, however, other factors together with competition might control the phenomenon. For instance, Beckers et al. (2005) reported that blocking and backward blocking are stronger when participants are informed that (a) the predicted US is submaximal than when it is maximal, and (b) the predictions of the US by the CSs are additive than when they are sub-additive. Submaximality refers to the evidence that the predicted US is weaker than its maximal possible value. Additivity denotes the fact that two CSs, each one independently predicting a given US, predict a stronger US when presented together. Beckers et al. suggested that their results are better explained by inferential accounts, which assume involvement of controlled and effortful reasoning, than by associative views. This chapter shows that a configural version of the SLG attentional-associative model is able to quantitatively approximate submaximality and additivity effects on blocking while providing a mechanistic explanation of the results. In general, the chapter illustrates the potential of associative models to account for newly discovered properties of known psychological phenomena.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document