John J. B. Ayres

Role of context similarity in ABA, ABC, and AAB renewal paradigms: Implications for theories of renewal and for treating human phobias

Using barpress conditioned suppression, we studied the renewal of conditioned fear in rats, an animal model for the relapse of human fears and phobias. We demonstrated ABA renewal when the only differences between Contexts A and B included (1) their odor, (2) their location (i.e., side of room), and (3) unintended differences between copies of the same box at the two sites. Removing either the odor or location cues abolished the renewal effect. We then directly compared the effects of ABA and AAB procedures under two levels of context similarity. Although AAB renewal occurred, ABA renewal was stronger. Adding multiple context distinctions to the three listed above did not significantly enhance either form of renewal. Finally, we directly compared the strengths of AAB, ABC, and ABA renewal. AAB renewal, though again significant, was weaker than ABA and ABC renewal, which did not differ significantly. Fear renewal (relapse) can thus be reduced by extinguishing the fear in the acquisition context, regardless of the nature of the test context.

One-trial excitatory backward conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats: Concurrent observations of lick suppression and defensive behaviors

Twenty-eight male albino rats were given a single 4-sec 1-mA electric-grid-shock unconditioned stimulus (US). In the same session they received two 12-sec conditioned stimuli (CSs). One CS (explicitly unpaired) terminated 180 sec before the US began; the other (backward paired) began immediately after the US terminated. The CSs used were a 1000-Hz 85-dB tone and an 84-dB click; their roles were counterbalanced. Over the next 2 days, each CS was presented for 2 min while the rats drank from a water bottle. The backward-paired CS was found to suppress licking more than the explicitly unpaired CS. This suppression was accompanied by an increase in defensive behavior (freezing and freeze/nod) and by a decrease in other activity. The suppression did not seem to be due to a maintained or enhanced CS-orienting response reflex, nor could it be attributed to an adventitiously reinforced interfering operant. The results support the presumption made in previous reports that the lick suppression evoked by a backward CS reflected one-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning.

Treatments that weaken Pavlovian conditioned fear and thwart its renewal in rats: implications for treating human phobias.

In experiments using a total of 144 albino rat subjects, the authors assessed the ability of fear-weakening treatments to prevent fear renewal (relapse). Conditioned suppression of operant behavior served as the measure of fear in an A-B-A (acquisition-treatment-test) renewal paradigm. In Experiment 1, 100 nonreinforced exposures to a feared cue during treatment (extinction) did not reduce fear renewal relative to 20 exposures. In Experiment 2, explicitly unpaired (EU) treatments thwarted both renewal and reacquisition. In Experiment 3, conditioned inhibition (CI) and differential conditioning (DC) treatments weakened renewal and resisted both reacquisition and a form of reinstatement. In Experiment 4, EU, DC, and CI treatments all thwarted renewal. Evidence suggested that the ability of the treatments to do so reflected the combined effects of transfer of extinction across treatment and test contexts and habituation to the unconditioned stimulus.

One-trial simultaneous and backward fear conditioning as reflected in conditioned suppression of licking in rats

In three experiments, groups of albino rats received one strictly simultaneous pairing of a 4-sec auditory conditioned stimulus (CS) and a 4-sec 1-mA shock unconditioned stimulus (US). Other groups received a backward pairing, in which the US began before the CS, or a forward pairing, in which the CS began before the US. Control groups received only the US or received both the CS and the US but widely separated in time. Later, the CS was presented while the rats licked a drinking tube for water, and CS-elicited suppression of licking was taken as an index of the Pavlovian conditioned response (CR). It was found that groups receiving a single forward or a single simultaneous pairing suppressed more than groups that had received a backward pairing; and the backward groups, in turn, suppressed more than the control groups. It appears, then, that excitatory fear conditioning, as reflected in conditioned suppression of licking in rats, can be produced in a single trial by both backward and simultaneous conditioning procedures.

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

Water-deprived male albino rats received a single presentation of a 4-sec electric-grid-shock unconditioned stimulus followed by a 4-sec white-noise conditioned stimulus (a single backward conditioning trial.) Excitation conditioned to the noise was indexed in terms of the noise’s subsequent ability to suppress ongoing licking of a water tube. The main findings were: (1) Excitation was acquired and was retained over a 30-day retention interval; (2) although excitation was retained, it did not grow significantly stronger during the interval (there was no incubation effect); (3) excitation was extinguished by noise-alone trials; and (4) excitation showed more spontaneous recovery when extinction trials were separated by 29 days than when separated by only 1 day. Because these results are similar to those in the forward conditioning literature, they seem consistent with, but do not demand, the view that forward and backward excitatory conditioning involve similar learning processes. A current theory that embraces this view is opponent-process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1974). We suggest that opponent-process theory can (1) account for existing backward conditioning data, (2) explain the phenomenon of incubation that has previously been described in the literature while simultaneously explaining its absence in the present study, and (3) integrate certain nonmonotonic acquisition phenomena that have appeared in both the forward and backward conditioning literatures.

One-trial context fear conditioning as a function of the interstimulus interval

In two experiments, we examined the effects of a wide range of interstimulus intervals (2.5, 15, 45, 120, 135, and 405 sec) on one-trial context fear conditioning with rats. Here, the interstimulus interval (ISI) denotes the time between placement in a conditioning chamber and the onset of a single footshock. On the conditioning day, we observed that the rats’ behavior at the time of shock onset varied systematically across ISI values. On the subsequent test day, we used context-evoked freezing as a measure of context conditioning and found the well-known inverted U-shaped ISI function. We also found that conditioned freezing for the shortest ISI values was concentrated early in the test session, whereas freezing at longer ISIs was distributed more evenly throughout the test session. The freezing results found here are more consistent with the literature on conditioning with punctate cues than are previously described results from one-trial context fear-conditioning procedures.

CS and US duration effects in one-trial simultaneous fear conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

In three experiments, rats received a single presentation of an auditory conditioned stimulus (CS) beginning simultaneously with an electric grid-shock unconditioned stimulus (US). Later, the CS was presented while the rats licked a drinking tube for water, and CS-elicited suppression of licking was taken as an index of the excitation conditioned to the CS. It was found that conditioning increased as a joint function of the duration of CS-US overlap and US duration. The evidence suggested that weak conditioning due to a brief CS-US overlap could be increased by extending the US beyond CS termination. Extending CS duration beyond US termination, however, did not strengthen conditioning; indeed, extending the CS 60 sec beyond US termination weakened conditioning significantly. It is suggested that these results shed light on a discrepancy in the recent literature on simultaneous conditioning.

Use of the ABA fear renewal paradigm to assess the effects of extinction with co-present fear inhibitors or excitors: Implications for theories of extinction and for treating human fears and phobias

Abstract In four experiments using albino rats in an ABA fear renewal paradigm, we studied conditioned fear in the A test context following extinction in Context B. Conditioned suppression of operant responding was the index of fear. In Experiments 1–3, we found that extinguishing a feared cue in compound with a putative conditioned inhibitor of fear led to more fear in the test context than did a conventional extinction procedure. In Experiments 4a and 4b, we found that extinguishing three feared cues in compound required one third the time and generally led to less fear to the cues in the test context than did the extinction of each cue separately. Thus, fear in the test context seems to vary inversely with the values of co-present cues during extinction in Context B. Results imply that cue value is actually reduced by extinction procedures rather than merely being opposed by a growing inhibitory process. Implications for theories of renewal and for clinical practice are discussed.

Converging evidence for one-trial context fear conditioning with an immediate shock: importance of shock potency.

In a sample of 208 Holtzman-descended albino rats, we found evidence with 4 measures of conditioning (freezing, defecation, side crossing, and nose crossing) that a single 2-s, 1.0-mA immediate shock could condition fear to a context (Experiments 1, 2, and 4). When we reduced the shock intensity to 0.5 mA, we obtained a complete immediate-shock conditioning deficit according to all measures in Experiment 3 and to all but the defecation measure in Experiment 4. Results suggest two conclusions: (a) Differences in shock potency between laboratories may help explain discrepant findings about whether immediate shock supports contextual conditioning; (b) theories of contextual conditioning need a mechanism that permits that conditioning to result from immediate shock.

The truly random control as an extinction procedure

CS-alone trials or random presentations of CSs and USs were interpolated between Pavlovian defense conditioning and later measurement of the Pavlovian CR (conditioned suppression of barpressing). Although both procedures equally degraded the CS-US contingency, only the CS-alone procedure significantly weakened the previously established CR.