Context and performance in aversive-to-appetitive and appetitive-to-aversive transfer

Development of a rat model to assess the efficacy of the somatosensory-evoked potential as indicator of analgesia

“…This finding is consistent with other studies and is explained in terms of excitatory aversive and appetitive motivational brain systems inhibiting one another [9,10]. According to this explanation, the CS presented during Phase 2 of an aversive-to-appetitive transfer paradigm activates the motivational aversive brain system, which has an inhibitory effect upon the motivational appetitive system, thus blocking learning an appetitive-conditioning task.…”

“…Therefore, the appetitive system in the paired group, in the present study, may have been blocked to a greater extent resulting in less reward-directed behavior. Alternatively, differences in reward-directed behavior found in this study could also be a result of response competition at the motor level [9,10]. In this view, reward-directed behavior can be seen as an indirect measure of freezing behavior, indicating a stronger association between the CS and the SEP-stimulation paradigm in the paired group when compared to the random-control group.…”

“…Peck and Bouton [9] found an important effect of fearconditioning to context, during Phase 1 of an aversive-toappetitive transfer, upon the behavioral response shown during Phase 2. We suggest that fear conditioning to context did not affect the behavioral responses found in this study.…”

Contextual modulation of mirror and countermirror sensorimotor associations.

“…Crucially, however, the present data provide further evidence that this learning is associative; that it is mediated by the same processes responsible for Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning in humans and animals. Counter-conditioning and renewal effects demonstrate that second-learned associations show greater context specificity than the first associations formed with a novel stimulus (Bouton, 1994;Bouton & King, 1983;Nelson, 2002;Nelson et al, 2011;Peck & Bouton, 1990). That the sensorimotor associations established during counter-mirror learning are modulated by context argues that counter-mirror associations are equivalent to second-learned associations acquired during counter-conditioning.…”

“…While the conditioned response acquired in the first phase is relatively insensitive to changes in context, the learning that occurs in the second phase is often far more context-specific. For example, Peck and Bouton (1990) initially trained rats to expect a mild electric shock following a tone in Context A, before transferring them to a second schedule, where the tone signalled the delivery of food, in Context B. Although the original conditioned response was reduced during training in Context B, it re-emerged when the rats were returned to Context A or placed in a novel Context C.…”