Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:59:01.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unpredictability and Context Conditioning: Does the Nature of the US Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

Ann Meulders*
Affiliation:
University of Leuven (Belgium)
Yannick Boddez
Affiliation:
University of Leuven (Belgium)
Debora Vansteenwegen
Affiliation:
University of Leuven (Belgium)
Frank Baeyens
Affiliation:
University of Leuven (Belgium)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ann Meulders. Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, box 3726. 3000 Leuven (Belgium). E-mail: ann.meulders@ppw.kuleuven.be

Abstract

Using a conditioned suppression task, we examined the minimal conditions to establish context conditioning as induced by unpredictability of an unconditioned stimulus (US). We investigated whether a biologically significant US is necessary to produce such context conditioning effects. In this between-subjects experiment, we manipulated the nature of the US and US-unpredictability. In the Paired condition, the conditioned stimulus (CS) was always followed by the US, whereas in the Unpaired condition, the CS and the US were presented explicitly unpaired, that is, the CS was never followed by the US. Half of the participants received an aversive, biologically significant human scream, and the other half received a more neutral, biologically non-significant sound as US. Results show more contextual suppression in the Unpaired condition than in the Paired condition. We conclude that in an expectancy-based conditioning task, US-unpredictability, but not a biologically potent US, is crucial to establish context conditioning.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was funded by a grant (GOA/2007/03) from the Research Council of the University of Leuven, Belgium. The authors would like to thank Jelle Mampaey and Katleen Jordens for their assistance in collecting the data.

References

Ameli, R., Ip, C., & Grillon, C. (2001). Contextual fear-potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Replication and extension. Psychophysiology, 38, 383390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3830383 Google Scholar
Arcediano, F., Ortega, N., & Matute, H. (1996). A behavioral preparation for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 270283.Google Scholar
Baeyens, F., & Clarysse, J. (1998). Martians for WindowsTM95 [Computer Program]. Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Baeyens, F., Vansteenwegen, D., Beckers, T., Hermans, D., Kerkhof, I., & De Ceulaer, A. (2005). Extinction and renewal of pavlovian modulation in human sequential feature positive discrimination learning. Learning and Memory, 12, 178192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.89905 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouton, M. E. (2002). Context, ambiguity, and unlearning: Sources of relapse after behavioral extinction. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 976986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01546-9 Google Scholar
Cantor, M. B., & LoLordo, V. M. (1972). Reward value of brain stimulation is inversely related to uncertainty about its onset. Journal of Comparitive and Physiological Psychology 79, 259270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032533 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, D. S. J., & Boakes, R. A. (2011). Varying temporal contiguity and interference in a human avoidance task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 7178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021192 Google Scholar
De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B, 55, 289310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724990244000034 Google Scholar
Fanselow, M. S. (1980). Signaled shock-free periods and preference for signaled shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 6580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0097-7403.6.1.65 Google Scholar
Grillon, C. (2002). Startle reactivity and anxiety disorders: Aversive conditioning, context, and neurobiology. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 958975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01665-7 Google Scholar
Grillon, C., Baas, J. Lissek, S., Smith, K., & Milstein, J. (2004). Anxious responses to predictable and unpredictable aversive events. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 916924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.118.5.916 Google Scholar
Guerra, P. M., Bradley, M. M., Perakakis, P., Pinheiro, W. M., Vila, J. C., & Lang, P. J. (2006, October). Defensive reactions to natural human screams and aversive white noise II. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Hamm, A. O., Vaitl, D., & Lang, P. J. (1989). Fear conditioning, meaning, and belongingness: A selective association analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 395406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.98.4.395 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Havermans, R. C., Keuker, J., Lataster, T., & Jansen, A. (2005). Contextual control of extinguished conditioned performance in humans. Learning and Motivation, 36, 119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2004.09.002 Google Scholar
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Matute, H., & Pineño, O. (1998). Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 314. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03199157 Google Scholar
Meulders, A., Vervliet, B., Vansteenwegen, D., Hermans, D., & Baeyens, F. (2011). A new tool for assessing context conditioning induced by US-unpredictability in humans: The Martians task restyled. Learning and Motivation, 42, 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2010.04.001 Google Scholar
Prokasy, W. F. (1956). The acquisition of observing responses in the absence of differential external reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 49, 131134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046740 Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Inhibition of delay in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 64, 114120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024810 Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II (pp. 6499). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Seligman, M., & Binik, Y. (1977) The safety signal hypothesis. In Davis, H., & Hurwiwtz, H. (Eds.), Operant Pavlovian interactions (pp. 165188). Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (2010). Learning: From association to cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 273301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100519 Google Scholar