Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning)

Abstract

In two experiments with rat subjects, we examined the effects of a retention interval on performance in two conditioning paradigms in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) was associated with different unconditioned stimuli (USs) in successive phases of the experiment. Experiment 1 was designed to examine aversive-appetitive transfer, in which the CS is associated with shock and then food; Experiment 2 was designed to examine appetitive-aversive transfer, in which the CS is associated with food and then shock. Aversive and appetitive conditioned responses (freezing and head-jerk responding, respectively) were scored from videotape. In both experiments, a 28-day retention interval following the end of Phase 2 caused a recovery of the Phase 1 response and a resuppression of the Phase 2 response. The results suggest that the original association is not destroyed when the CS is associated with a new US in Phase 2. They also suggest that both retroactive and proactive interference effects may result from interference with performance output rather than a disruption or loss of what is learned during or stored from the target phase.The present article is concerned with two conditioning paradigms in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with different unconditioned stimuli (USs) in successive phases of the experiment. In aversive-to-appetitive transfer, the CS is associated with an aversive US (e.g., shock) in an initial phase and then an appetitive US (e.g., food or water) in a second phase. In appetitive-to-aversive transfer, the CS is first paired with an appetitive US and then an aversive US. In either case, the CS comes to evoke responding appropriate to the second US by the end of the second phase (see, e.g., Bromage

Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatments: Symmetry with respect to primacy

“…That is, the CS is paired with an appetitive outcome on so-called nonreinforced trials, and paired with an aversive outcome on so-called reinforced trials. Interestingly, a long retention interval imposed before testing can produce a shift toward primacy in responding to appetitive-aversive counterconditioned stimuli (Bouton & Peck, 1992). Thus, during the CS-outcome pairings in both the present retention interval studies and those of De la Casa and Lubow, the CS may have been of little more significance than on the nonreinforced trials.…”

Persistence and plasticity in the human memory system: An empirical investigation of the overwriting hypothesis

“…Recovery e ects are also repeatedly observed in counter-conditioning studies (CS-US1, CS-US2) which more closely resemble the structure of the paired-associate learning paradigm (Bouton & Peck, 1992).…”

Contextual modulation of mirror and countermirror sensorimotor associations.

“…Associative accounts argue that counter-conditioning comes under contextual control in order to resolve ambiguity (Bouton, 1993(Bouton, , 1994Nelson, 2002). Rather than simply overwriting the original learning, there is considerable evidence that subsequent conditioning to the same stimulus sets up parallel, second-learned associations (Bouton & Peck, 1992;Brooks, Hale, Nelson, & Bouton, 1995). However, the conflict between the first-and second-learned associations renders the stimulus ambiguous: it is not clear what the appropriate behaviour is in the presence of the stimulus.…”

“…Rather than over-write or unlearn existing associations, there is considerable evidence that extinction and counter-conditioning establish additional parallel associations (Bouton & Peck, 1992;Brooks et al, 1995). However, being associated with two opposing responses renders the stimulus ambiguous.…”