The effect of conditioned inhibitors and preexposed cues on the outcome-specific Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer effect in humans.

Using a human Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) task, Alarcón and Bonardi showed that the selective elevation of instrumental responding produced by excitatory transfer cues was reduced when these cues were presented with a conditioned inhibitor (CI), relative to a control cue that was simply preexposed. However, previous research has shown that preexposed cues might also acquire inhibitor-like properties. This study aimed to contrast the inhibitory properties of CIs and preexposed cues, using novel stimuli as controls, in summation and PIT tests. Participants were trained to perform two actions, each reinforced with a distinct outcome (O1 or O2). Two images were trained as CIs, each signalling the absence of one of the outcomes, by presenting them with a cue that was otherwise followed by that outcome (e.g., A→O1, AI→no O1). In contrast, the preexposed cues were simply presented in the absence of the outcomes. In the summation test, participants rated the likelihood of the outcomes in the presence of two independently trained excitatory cues, each presented with a CI, a preexposed cue, or a novel stimulus. Similarly, in the PIT test, participants performed both actions in the presence and absence of these compounds. In the summation test, the CIs and the preexposed cues reduced participants' expectations of the outcomes more than the novel stimuli. However, in the PIT test, only the CIs reduced the selective elevation of responding produced by the transfer cues. These results might reflect distinct properties of stimuli trained as CIs and those simply preexposed.

Rats' preferences in the suboptimal choice procedure: Evaluating the impact of reinforcement probability and conditioned inhibitors.

Previous research has shown that pigeons and other birds display a strong and consistent preference for an alternative of reinforcement that presents stimuli that allow to discriminate whether a reinforcer will be delivered or not, even when its probability of reinforcement is lower than that of another alternative without those stimuli. In contrast, most of the studies performed with rats report that they show the opposite preference, choosing the alternative with higher probability of reinforcement. To explain these opposite preferences, it has been proposed that rats and pigeons have a differential sensitivity to the conditioned inhibition that emerges from the stimulus that predicts non-reinforcement: While it does not have an impact in pigeons, it strongly influences rats´ preferences. Alternatively, it was recently proposed that there is not a fundamental difference in the behavior of rats and pigeons, but that the procedure employed to evaluate each of these species has generated the difference; in particular, it was proposed that both species prefer the discriminative alternative when the discriminative stimuli have incentive salience. Two recent studies provide support for each of these hypotheses, so that the available evidence does not allow to distinguish between them. In the present report, we present three studies that systematically explore the influence of the procedural differences between the studies with discrepant results. The obtained results provide support for the following ideas: a) there is a fundamental difference between pigeons and rats in their choice behavior in the "suboptimal choice procedure", b) considering the incentive salience of the discriminative stimuli does not resolve it, and c) rats' optimality is a consistent phenomenon, which resists manipulations in reinforcement probabilities and the absence of conditioned inhibitors in the discriminative alternative.

Incentive salience attribution is not the sole determinant of suboptimal choice in rats: Conditioned inhibition matters.

Previous research has identified clear differences between pigeons and rats in the suboptimal choice procedure. Pigeons behave suboptimally, preferring an alternative with discriminative stimuli and a smaller probability of reinforcement, over another with a higher probability of reinforcement, but without discriminative stimuli. In contrast, rats behave optimally showing the opposite preference. It has been proposed that these dissimilarities are consequence of a higher sensitivity to conditioned inhibition in rats than in pigeons. Alternatively, recent research suggests that differences in optimality can be accounted for by a differential incentive salience of the stimuli employed as discriminative stimuli, and that both species are suboptimal when such stimuli have high incentive salience; specifically, rats were found to be suboptimal when levers were used as discriminative stimuli. However, in the evaluation of this hypothesis, a conditioned inhibitor was not employed. In the present report, eight rats were exposed to a choice procedure that integrated both variables discussed above: a conditioned inhibitor was associated with the discriminative alternative and the stimuli had high incentive salience. A clear preference for the optimal alternative was found, suggesting that the conditioned inhibitor had a considerable impact on rats' preference, and that species-differences remain even in procedures in which the discriminative stimuli have incentive salience.

Optimal behavior by rats in a choice task is associated to a persistent conditioned inhibition effect.

When given a choice between an alternative with a low probability of reinforcement and discriminative stimuli, and another with a higher probability of reinforcement and non-discriminative stimuli, pigeons show a clear preference for the former but rats clearly prefer the later. It has been reported that pigeon's suboptimal choice is associated to a diminishing effect of the stimulus correlated with non-reinforcement. In the present paper, we explored the possibility that rats' optimal choice is more strongly influenced than pigeons' by the stimulus associated to non-reinforcement and that the effects of it do not dissipate during training. We trained rats to choose between an alternative with 0.50 probability of reinforcement and discriminative stimuli, and an alternative with 0.75 probability of reinforcement and non-discriminative stimuli. We replicated the strong preference for the optimal alternative. Then, after several sessions of training, we presented summation trials in which both the stimulus associated to reinforcement and the stimulus associated to non-reinforcement were simultaneously presented. The results showed that the stimulus associated to non-reinforcement exerted a strong effect on choice, and, more importantly, that it did not seem to dissipate across training. These results suggest that the strong difference found between pigeons and rats in the suboptimal choice procedure is potentially related to differences in the impact of conditioned inhibitors.