Motivational factors underlying aversive Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.

While interest in active avoidance has recently been resurgent, many concerns relating to the nature of this form of learning remain unresolved. By separating stimulus and response acquisition, aversive Pavlovian-instrumental transfer can be used to measure the effect of avoidance learning on threat processing with more control than typical avoidance procedures. However, the motivational substrates that contribute to the aversive transfer effect have not been thoroughly examined. In three studies using rodents, the impact of a variety of aversive signals on shock-avoidance responding (i.e., two-way shuttling) was evaluated. Fox urine, as well as a tone paired with the delivery of the predator odor were insufficient modulatory stimuli for the avoidance response. Similarly, a signal for the absence of food did not generate appropriate aversive motivation to enhance shuttling. Only conditioned Pavlovian stimuli that had been paired with unconditioned threats were capable of augmenting shock-avoidance responding. This was true whether the signaled outcome was the same (e.g., shock) or different (e.g., klaxon) from the avoidance outcome (i.e., shock). These findings help to characterize the aversive transfer effect and provide a more thorough analysis of its generalization to warning signals for different kinds of threats. This feature of aversive motivation has not been demonstrated using conventional avoidance procedures and could be potentially useful for applying avoidance in treatment settings.

Novelty-facilitated extinction: providing a novel outcome in place of an expected threat diminishes recovery of defensive responses.

BACKGROUND: Experimental extinction serves as a model for psychiatric treatments based on associative learning. However, the effects of extinction are often transient, as evidenced by postextinction return of defensive behaviors. From a therapeutic perspective, an inherent problem with extinction may be that mere omission of threat is not sufficient to reduce future threat uncertainty. The current study tested an augmented form of extinction that replaced, rather than merely omitted, expected threat outcomes with novel nonthreat outcomes, with the goal of reducing postextinction return of defensive behaviors. METHODS: Thirty-two healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats and 47 human adults underwent threat conditioning to a conditioned stimulus paired with an electrical shock. Subjects then underwent a standard extinction protocol with shock omitted or an augmented extinction protocol wherein the shock was replaced by a surprising tone. Tests of postextinction recovery occurred 24 hours later in the absence of the tone. RESULTS: Replacing the shock with a novel nonthreat outcome, as compared with shock omission, reduced postextinction recovery (freezing in rats and anticipatory skin conductance responses in humans) when tested 24 hours later. Self-reported intolerance of uncertainty was positively correlated with recovery following standard extinction in humans, providing new evidence that postextinction recovery is related to sensitivity to future threat uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide cross-species evidence of a novel strategy to enhance extinction that may have broad implications for how to override associative learning that has become maladaptive and offer a simple technique that could be straightforwardly adapted and implemented in clinical situations.