Conditioned reinforcement and backward association

Abstract

In the present study, excitatory backward conditioning was assessed in a conditioned reinforcement paradigm. The experiment was conducted with human subjects and consisted of five conditions. In all conditions, US reinforcing value (i.e. time reduction of a timer) was assessed in phase 1 using a concurrent FR schedule, with one response key leading to US presentation and the other key leading to no-US. In phase 2, two discrete stimuli, S+ and S-, were paired with US and no-US respectively using an operant contingency. For three groups, backward contingencies were arranged, and two of these were designed to rule out a trace (forward) conditioning interpretation of the results. The two other groups served as control conditions (forward and neutral conditions).Finally, in phase 3 for all groups the CSs were delivered in a concurrent FR schedule similar to phase 1, but with no US. Responding during phase 3 showed conditioned reinforcement effects and hence excitatory backward conditioning. Implications of the results for conditioned reinforcement models are discussed.

Excitatory second-order conditioning using a backward first-order conditioned stimulus: A challenge for prediction error reduction

“…Prével et al’s (2016) results replicated with human participants a previous experiment by Urushihara (2004) that demonstrated conditioned reinforcement with a backward CS using rats as subjects. Together, the results of these studies lend support to previous claims of excitatory conditioning following backward pairings (e.g., Ayres, Haddad, & Albert, 1987; Burkhardt, 1980; Heth, 1976; Mahoney & Ayres, 1976; Spetch, Terlecki, Pinel, Wilkie, & Treit, 1982; Tait & Saladin, 1986).…”

“…Towards better understanding the necessity of prediction error in learning, we recently reported evidence of excitatory conditioning by humans with a backward conditioned stimulus (CS) in a conditioned reinforcement preparation (Prével, Rivière, Darcheville, & Urcelay, 2016). Backward conditioning is of theoretical importance in that it is seemingly an instance of error-correction learning in which the error is not “predictive,” which is contrary to the widely held view that “prediction” error is essential for learning to occur.…”

“…Thus, it predicts that a backward CS would support excitatory responding to a second CS provided, through temporal integration, a predictive relationship is arranged between the second CS and the US (e.g., Barnet & Miller, 1996). Applying these assumptions to the Prével et al (2016) experiment, the participants presumably learned the US → CS relationship during the conditioning phase based on the strong temporal contiguity used in that experiment (i.e., a 100-ms inter-stimulus interval). Then, when the backward CS was delivered alone as a consequence of completing the FR12 schedule during the test phase, its presentation may have activated a representation of the US through the association learned during the conditioning treatment, which presumably made the participants expect the presentation of the US during the presses made towards completing the FR12 schedule, thereby conferring a predictive value to the operant response.…”

Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis regulates fear to unpredictable threat signals

“…Specifically, we arranged a brief (10 s) auditory CS to either precede (forward conditioning, FW) or follow (backward conditioning, BW) a footshock US in rats. Although extensively-trained BW CSs become conditioned inhibitors that dampen responding to other first-order excitatory cues (Andreatta et al, 2012; Ayres et al, 1976; Christianson et al, 2011; Gerber et al, 2014; Moscovitch and LoLordo, 1968; Siegel and Domjan, 1971), minimally-trained BW CSs elicit excitatory conditioned responses that transfer across contexts (Ayres et al, 1987; Barnet and Miller, 1996; Bevins and Ayres, 1992; Chang et al, 2003; Connor et al, 2017; Heth, 1976; Mahoney and Ayres, 1976; Prével et al, 2018; Prével et al, 2016; Rescorla, 1968). After conditioning, we examined the effect of pharmacological inactivation of the BNST on freezing to FW or BW CSs.…”

Toward a Unifying Account of Impulsivity and the Development of Self-Control

“…Secondary rewards increase the frequency of a response that produces them, maintain a previously acquired response, and can even make a subject choose one of two alternatives that deliver the same amount of primary reward but different rates of secondary rewards (e.g., Mazur, 1995;Prével, Rivière, Darcheville, & Urcelay, 2016). Correspondingly, and more important for our approach, stimuli that are negatively correlated to a primary reward may acquire an aversive function (Leitenberg, 1965); this conditioned aversive stimulus may punish ongoing responses (i.e., decrease their frequency when presented contingently), and the organism will tend to avoid or escape from them.…”