scholarly journals Erratum to: Counteraction between two kinds of conditioned inhibition training

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-463
Author(s):  
G. P. Urcelay ◽  
R. R. Miller
2020 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 101642
Author(s):  
Rachel A. Richardson ◽  
Paige N. Michener ◽  
Courtney L. Gann ◽  
Isabella M. North ◽  
Todd R. Schachtman

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Rachel Anne Richardson

Conditioned inhibition (CI) is a classical conditioning procedure that results in a conditioned stimulus (CS) that predicts the absence of an unconditioned stimulus (US). A procedure known as Pavlovian conditioned inhibition training is the most common procedure for producing CI. In this procedure, a nontarget CS (CS A) is paired with the US and then CS A is presented with the target CS (CS X) without the US. Therefore, AUS trials and AX-noUS trials are given. CS X acquires inhibitory properties during these AX trials. Research has shown that extinction also produces CI. Extinction occurs when a CS (CS X) is paired with the US during conditioning and then this CS is presented alone without the US. The Rescorla-Wagner model predicts that the two CSs during AX-noUS trials will compete for learning and this should lead to slow and limited learning about those cues (a loss of excitation for CS A and inhibition acquired for CS X) due to this competition. During extinction trials, CS X does not compete for learning, so the subject should learn rapidly about the CS. The following experiments found that extinction produced less inhibition than Pavlovian conditioned inhibition training.


1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Hinderliter ◽  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Bernadine M. Santai ◽  
Kimberly E. Bautz ◽  
Ann A. Murphy ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 103885
Author(s):  
Aileen Echiverri-Cohen ◽  
Lucas Spierer ◽  
Marcelina Perez ◽  
Melissa Kulon ◽  
Montana Daunbi Ellis ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Fenne M. Smits ◽  
Elbert Geuze ◽  
Dennis J. L. G. Schutter ◽  
Jack van Honk ◽  
Thomas E. Gladwin

Abstract Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and impulsive aggression are linked to transdiagnostic neurocognitive deficits. This includes impaired inhibitory control over inappropriate responses. Prior studies showed that inhibitory control can be improved by modulating the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in combination with inhibitory control training. However, its clinical potential remains unclear. We therefore aimed to replicate a tDCS-enhanced inhibitory control training in a clinical sample and test whether this reduces stress-related mental health symptoms. Methods In a preregistered double-blind randomized-controlled trial, 100 active-duty military personnel and post-active veterans with PTSD, anxiety, or impulsive aggression symptoms underwent a 5-session intervention where a stop-signal response inhibition training was combined with anodal tDCS over the right IFG for 20 min at 1.25 mA. Inhibitory control was evaluated with the emotional go/no-go task and implicit association test. Stress-related symptoms were assessed by self-report at baseline, post-intervention, and after 3-months and 1-year follow-ups. Results Active relative to sham tDCS neither influenced performance during inhibitory control training nor on assessment tasks, and did also not significantly influence self-reported symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, impulsive aggression, or depression at post-assessment or follow-up. Conclusions Our results do not support the idea that anodal tDCS over the right IFG at 1.25 mA enhances response inhibition training in a clinical sample, or that this tDCS-training combination can reduce stress-related symptoms. Applying different tDCS parameters or combining tDCS with more challenging tasks might provide better conditions to modulate cognitive functioning and stress-related symptoms.


i-Perception ◽  
10.1068/ic259 ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-259
Author(s):  
Ming-Chou Ho ◽  
Ren-Hau Li ◽  
Tze-Chun Tang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document