Reward Devaluation Disrupts Latent Inhibition in Fear Conditioning

Overview

Journal Learn Behav

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychology
Social Sciences
Veterinary Medicine

Date 2017 Jul 13

PMID 28699100

Citations 1

Authors

Luis Gonzalo De La Casa

Auxiliadora Mena

Juan Carlos Ruiz-Salas

Esperanza Quintero

Mauricio R Papini

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Three experiments explored the link between reward shifts and latent inhibition (LI). Using consummatory procedures, rewards were either downshifted from 32% to 4% sucrose (Experiments 1-2), or upshifted from 4% to 32% sucrose (Experiment 3). In both cases, appropriate unshifted controls were also included. LI was implemented in terms of fear conditioning involving a single tone-shock pairing after extensive tone-only preexposure. Nonpreexposed controls were also included. Experiment 1 demonstrated a typical LI effect (i.e., disruption of fear conditioning after preexposure to the tone) in animals previously exposed only to 4% sucrose. However, the LI effect was eliminated by preexposure to a 32%-to-4% sucrose devaluation. Experiment 2 replicated this effect when the LI protocol was administered immediately after the reward devaluation event. However, LI was restored when preexposure was administered after a 60-min retention interval. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that a reward upshift did not affect LI. These results point to a significant role of negative emotion related to reward devaluation in the enhancement of stimulus processing despite extensive nonreinforced preexposure experience.

Citing Articles

Facilitation and retardation of flavor preference conditioning following prior exposure to the flavor conditioned stimulus.

Morillas E, Gonzalez F, Hall G Learn Behav. 2018; 47(2):177-186.

PMID: 30421121 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-018-0368-4.

References

Joseph M, Peters S, Moran P, Grigoryan G, Young A, Gray J . Modulation of latent inhibition in the rat by altered dopamine transmission in the nucleus accumbens at the time of conditioning. Neuroscience. 2000; 101(4):921-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4522(00)00437-1. View

Braunstein-Bercovitz H, Dimentman-Ashkenazi I, Lubow R . Stress affects the selection of relevant from irrelevant stimuli. Emotion. 2003; 1(2):182-92. DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.2.182. View

Pecoraro N, de Jong H, Dallman M . An unexpected reduction in sucrose concentration activates the HPA axis on successive post shift days without attenuation by discriminative contextual stimuli. Physiol Behav. 2009; 96(4-5):651-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.12.018. View

Westbrook R, Jones M, Bailey G, Harris J . Contextual control over conditioned responding in a latent inhibition paradigm. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2000; 26(2):157-73. DOI: 10.1037//0097-7403.26.2.157. View

Manzo L, Donaire R, Sabariego M, Papini M, Torres C . Anti-anxiety self-medication in rats: oral consumption of chlordiazepoxide and ethanol after reward devaluation. Behav Brain Res. 2014; 278:90-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.09.017. View

OVERTON D . Experimental methods for the study of state-dependent learning. Fed Proc. 1974; 33(7):1800-13. View

Kawasaki K, Annicchiarico I, Glueck A, Moron I, Papini M . Reward loss and the basolateral amygdala: A function in reward comparisons. Behav Brain Res. 2017; 331:205-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.05.036. View

Bouton M . Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychol Bull. 1993; 114(1):80-99. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.80. View

Lubow R, MOORE A . Latent inhibition: the effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1959; 52:415-9. DOI: 10.1037/h0046700. View

10.

Ortega L, Solano J, Torres C, Papini M . Reward loss and addiction: Opportunities for cross-pollination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2017; 154:39-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2017.02.001. View

11.

Kawasaki K, Glueck A, Annicchiarico I, Papini M . Function of the centromedial amygdala in reward devaluation and open-field activity. Neuroscience. 2015; 303:73-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.06.053. View

12.

Pascucci T, Ventura R, Latagliata E, Cabib S, Puglisi-Allegra S . The medial prefrontal cortex determines the accumbens dopamine response to stress through the opposing influences of norepinephrine and dopamine. Cereb Cortex. 2007; 17(12):2796-804. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhm008. View

13.

Rau V, Fanselow M . Exposure to a stressor produces a long lasting enhancement of fear learning in rats. Stress. 2008; 12(2):125-33. DOI: 10.1080/10253890802137320. View

14.

Hall G, Channell S . Context specificity of latent inhibition in taste aversion learning. Q J Exp Psychol B. 1986; 38(2):121-39. View

15.

Smith S, Fieser S, Jones J, Schachtman T . Effects of swim stress on latent inhibition using a conditioned taste aversion procedure. Physiol Behav. 2008; 95(3):539-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.014. View

16.

Shalev U, Feldon J, Weiner I . Latent inhibition is disrupted by acute and repeated administration of corticosterone. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2001; 1(2):103-113. DOI: 10.1017/S1461145798001163. View

17.

Lazar J, Kaplan O, Sternberg T, Lubow R . Positive and negative affect produce opposing task-irrelevant stimulus preexposure effects. Emotion. 2011; 12(3):591-604. DOI: 10.1037/a0024867. View

18.

Pellegrini S, Wood M, Daniel A, Papini M . Opioid receptors modulate recovery from consummatory successive negative contrast. Behav Brain Res. 2005; 164(2):239-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2005.06.035. View

19.

Mongeau R, Marcello S, Andersen J, Pani L . Contrasting effects of diazepam and repeated restraint stress on latent inhibition in mice. Behav Brain Res. 2007; 183(2):147-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.06.002. View

20.

Lehmann J, Stohr T, Feldon J . Long-term effects of prenatal stress experiences and postnatal maternal separation on emotionality and attentional processes. Behav Brain Res. 2000; 107(1-2):133-44. DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4328(99)00122-9. View