Literature DB >> 30604994

The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction.

C K Jonas Chan1, Justin A Harris1.   

Abstract

Four experiments compared the extinction of responding to a continuously reinforced (CRf) conditioned stimulus (conditional stimulus [CS]) consistently reinforced on every trial, with extinction of responding to a partially reinforced (PRf) CS that had been inconsistently reinforced. To equate the acquisition of responding between the two CSs, the average duration of the CRf CS was extended so that it scheduled the same overall rate of reinforcement per unit time as the PRf CS. Experiment 1 used a within-subjects design to compare the rates of extinction for a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 33% of trials versus a 30-s CRf CS. Experiment 2 made the same comparison but using a between-subjects design. Experiment 3 compared extinction in a group trained with a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 20% of trials and a group trained with a 50-s CRf CS. Experiment 4 compared the rates of extinction following two partial reinforcement schedules: a 10-s PRf CS reinforced on 33% of trial versus a 20-s CRf CS reinforced on 66% of trials. In each experiment, responding took longer to extinguish for the CS that scheduled a lower per-trial probability of reinforcement. Modeling of individual extinction curves using Weibull functions indicated that the latency to initiate extinction was directly related to the per-trial probability of reinforcement learned during acquisition. For example, compared with training with a CRf CS, rats reinforced on 33% of trials took approximately 3 times as many trials to initiate extinction, and rats reinforced on 20% of trials took 5 times as many trials to initiate extinction. These results provide support for trial-based accounts of extinction (e.g., Capaldi & Deutsch, 1967), whereby rats learn about the expected number of trials per reinforcer, and extinction depends on the number of expected reinforcers that have been omitted rather than on the number of extinction trials per se. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30604994     DOI: 10.1037/xan0000190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn        ISSN: 2329-8456            Impact factor:   2.478


  5 in total

1.  Benefiting from trial spacing without the cost of prolonged training: Frequency, not duration, of trials with absent stimuli enhances perceived contingency.

Authors:  Santiago Castiello; Ralph R Miller; James E Witnauer; Doriann M Alcaide; Ethan Fung; Riddhi J Pitliya; Dyedra K C Morrissey; Robin A Murphy
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2022-01-06

2.  Contextual reinstatement promotes extinction generalization in healthy adults but not PTSD.

Authors:  Augustin C Hennings; Mason McClay; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock; Joseph E Dunsmoor
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Dorsolateral striatum dopamine-dependent cocaine seeking is resistant to pavlovian cue extinction in male and female rats.

Authors:  Brooke N Bender; Mary M Torregrossa
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 5.250

Review 4.  BEHAVIORAL AND NEUROBIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS OF PAVLOVIAN AND INSTRUMENTAL EXTINCTION LEARNING.

Authors:  Mark E Bouton; Stephen Maren; Gavan P McNally
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 37.312

Review 5.  Pavlovian Learning Processes in Pediatric Anxiety Disorders: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Michael Treanor; Benjamin M Rosenberg; Michelle G Craske
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 12.810

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.