Fear conditioned with escapable and inescapable shock: Effects of a feedback stimulus.

Mineka, Susan; Cook, Michael; Miller, Stephanie

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.10.3.307

Cited by 133 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Pavlovian experiments, the shock is inescapable. For equal amounts of shock, inescapable shock appears to condition more fear than does escapable shock , 1971;Mineka, Cook, & Miller, 1984). Finally, one would expect that if the effects were due to overtraining, then the lesioned rats that received the most shocks during acquisition would have the best retention performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amygdala lesions do not impair shock-probe avoidance retention performance.

Lehmann¹,

Treit²,

Parent³

2000

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author has granted a non-L'auteur a accordé une The present experiment used the shock-probe paradigm, a procedure usually used to assess anxiolytic processes, to assess memory in amygdala-lesioned rats. Rats were placed in a chamber that contained a probe protmding from 1 of 4 walls and were kcpt in the chamber for 15 min after they contacted the probe. For half the rats, the probe was electrified (2 mA). Four days later, sham or neurotoxic arnygdala lesions were induced. Retention performance kvas assessed 8 days later by measuring the latency to contact the probe and the number of contact-induced shocks. The resuIts indicated that, although shock-naïve amygdala-lesioned rats were irnpaired on the second shock-probe test, shock-experienced amygdala-lesioned rats were not. These data indicate that the memory of a shock expenence, as indexed vvith a shock probe avoidance response, is spared in rats with large amygdala lesions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amygdala lesions do not impair shock-probe avoidance retention performance.

Lehmann¹,

Treit²,

Parent³

2000

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Briefly, this theory assumes that exposure to escapable shock, as opposed to inescapable shock, produces less overall fear conditioning of contextual cues (e.g., stress odors, the experimenter). Presumably, this difference in contextual fear conditioning is the result of the "safety-signal" properties of the feedback inherent in performing the escape response (Mineka, Cook, & Miller, 1984;Overmier, Murison, Skoglund, & Ursin, 1985). The differential levels of fear for subjects receiving escapable versus yoked-inescapable shock are also presumed to influence their subsequent agonistic behavior because of the inadvertent presence of a num-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of conspecific stress odors and shock controllability on conditioned defensive burying

Williams

1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, rats received a session of 80 inescapable tail shocks or no shocks while restrained in a tube. During tests of conditioned defensive burying 24 h later, the bedding of the chamber contained odors from either stressed or nonstressed conspecific donor rats. Following a single prod shock, subjects that had had prior shocks or that were tested with the stress odors spent significantly less time burying the prod, made smaller piles of bedding, and displayed more freezing behavior. The combination of prior shock and stress odors during later testing enhanced these effects. In Experiment 2, a yoked group of rats that was given inescapable shocks, in contrast to a group that had wheel-turn escape training and one that was restrained but not shocked, later showed significantly less burying and more freezing when tested for defensive burying with stress odors present. In both experiments the duration of burying and the heights of piles were positively correlated, and both of these measures were negatively correlated with freezing. The demonstrated capacity of unconditioned stress odors to mediate different degrees offear, depending upon the controllability of prior shock, is related to other studies of learned helplessness, and the predominance offreezing over burying is discussed in terms of various types of defensive strategies, stimulus-control processes, and the author's stress-coping-fear-defense (SCFD) theory.

show abstract

“…When important life events are unpredictable, however, an organism cannot initiate proper preparatory responses. A large number of animal studies demonstrates that exposure to unpredictable stressors evokes more negative emotional consequences, such as generalised anxiety and enhanced autonomic responding, than exposure to identical predictable stressors (Abbott, Schoen, & Badia, 1984;Mineka, Cook, & Miller, 1984;Rosellini, Warren, & DeCola, 1987). Furthermore, impaired performance after exposure to unpredictable stressors and preference for predictability have been often reported both in animals (Fanselow, 1980) and in humans (Craske, Glover, & DeCola, 1995;Lejuez, Eifert, Zvolensky, & Richards, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offset-Control Attenuates Context Conditioning Induced by US-unpredictability in a Human Conditioned Suppression Paradigm

Meulders¹,

Mampaey²,

Boddez³

et al. 2013

PSYCHOL BELG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether offset-control of the unconditioned stimulus (US) reduces context conditioning induced by US-unpredictability within a human conditioned suppression preparation. We also examined lack of control vs. loss of control. Three groups (No Controllability, NC; Controllability, C; Loss of Controllability, LC) received unsignaled USs during two learning phases (ACQ1-2). The NC group, never had offset-control, whereas the C group, always had offset-control. The LC group, had offset-control during ACQ1, but not during ACQ2. Results indicated that US-unpredictability led to contextual conditioned suppression during ACQ1, only when participants did not have offset-control; when they did, no context conditioning was established. From ACQ1 to ACQ2, contextual conditioned suppression increased in the LC group, but it was not more pronounced than in the NC group. These data suggest that offset-control attenuates context conditioning induced by US-unpredictability and -at least in this paradigm -loss of control is not worse than lack of control.

show abstract

Fear conditioned with escapable and inescapable shock: Effects of a feedback stimulus.

Cited by 133 publications

References 32 publications

Amygdala lesions do not impair shock-probe avoidance retention performance.

Amygdala lesions do not impair shock-probe avoidance retention performance.

Influence of conspecific stress odors and shock controllability on conditioned defensive burying

Offset-Control Attenuates Context Conditioning Induced by US-unpredictability in a Human Conditioned Suppression Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About