Retroactive interference: Counterconditioning ...
Document type :
Article dans une revue scientifique: Article original
DOI :
PMID :
Permalink :
Title :
Retroactive interference: Counterconditioning and extinction with and without biologically significant outcomes.
Author(s) :
Jozefowiez, Jeremie [Auteur]
Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives - UMR 9193 [SCALab]
Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives - UMR 9193 [SCALab]
Berruti, Alaina S [Auteur]
Albert Einstein College of Medicine [New York]
Moshchenko, Yaroslav [Auteur]
Peña, Tori [Auteur]
Stony Brook University [SUNY] [SBU]
Polack, Cody W [Auteur]
Binghamton University [SUNY]
Miller, Ralph R [Auteur]
Binghamton University [SUNY]
Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives - UMR 9193 [SCALab]
Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives - UMR 9193 [SCALab]
Berruti, Alaina S [Auteur]
Albert Einstein College of Medicine [New York]
Moshchenko, Yaroslav [Auteur]
Peña, Tori [Auteur]
Stony Brook University [SUNY] [SBU]
Polack, Cody W [Auteur]
Binghamton University [SUNY]
Miller, Ralph R [Auteur]
Binghamton University [SUNY]
Journal title :
Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition
Abbreviated title :
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn
Volume number :
46
Pages :
443-459
Publication date :
2020-10-01
ISSN :
2329-8464
HAL domain(s) :
Sciences cognitives
English abstract : [en]
Following cue-outcome (X-O) pairings, 2 procedures that reduce conditioned responses to X are extinction, in which X is presented by itself, and counterconditioning, in which X is paired with a different outcome typically ...
Show more >Following cue-outcome (X-O) pairings, 2 procedures that reduce conditioned responses to X are extinction, in which X is presented by itself, and counterconditioning, in which X is paired with a different outcome typically of valence opposite that of training. Although studies with animals have generally found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction in reducing responding, data from humans are less clear. They suggest counterconditioning is more efficient than extinction at interfering with emotional processing, but there is little difference between the two procedures regarding their impact on the verbal assessment of the probability of the outcome given the cue. However, issues of statistical power leave conclusions ambiguous. We compared counterconditioning and extinction in highly powered experiments that exploited a novel procedure. A rapid streamed-trial procedure was used in which participants were asked to rate how likely a target outcome was to accompany a target cue after being exposed to acquisition trials followed by extinction, counterconditioning, or neither. In Experiments 1 and 2, evaluative conditioning was assessed by asking participants to rate the pleasantness of the cues after treatment. These studies found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction at reducing evaluative conditioning but less efficient at decreasing the assessment of the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. The latter effect was replicated with neutral outcomes in Experiments 3 and 4, but the effect was inverted in Experiment 4 in conditions designed to preclude reinstatement of initial training by the question probing the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. Effect sizes were small (Cohen's d of 0.2 for effect on evaluative conditioning, Cohen's d of 0.3 for effect on the outcome expectancy). If representative, this poses a serious constraint in terms of statistical power for further investigations of differential efficiency of extinction and counterconditioning in humans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Show less >
Show more >Following cue-outcome (X-O) pairings, 2 procedures that reduce conditioned responses to X are extinction, in which X is presented by itself, and counterconditioning, in which X is paired with a different outcome typically of valence opposite that of training. Although studies with animals have generally found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction in reducing responding, data from humans are less clear. They suggest counterconditioning is more efficient than extinction at interfering with emotional processing, but there is little difference between the two procedures regarding their impact on the verbal assessment of the probability of the outcome given the cue. However, issues of statistical power leave conclusions ambiguous. We compared counterconditioning and extinction in highly powered experiments that exploited a novel procedure. A rapid streamed-trial procedure was used in which participants were asked to rate how likely a target outcome was to accompany a target cue after being exposed to acquisition trials followed by extinction, counterconditioning, or neither. In Experiments 1 and 2, evaluative conditioning was assessed by asking participants to rate the pleasantness of the cues after treatment. These studies found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction at reducing evaluative conditioning but less efficient at decreasing the assessment of the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. The latter effect was replicated with neutral outcomes in Experiments 3 and 4, but the effect was inverted in Experiment 4 in conditions designed to preclude reinstatement of initial training by the question probing the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. Effect sizes were small (Cohen's d of 0.2 for effect on evaluative conditioning, Cohen's d of 0.3 for effect on the outcome expectancy). If representative, this poses a serious constraint in terms of statistical power for further investigations of differential efficiency of extinction and counterconditioning in humans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Show less >
Language :
Anglais
Peer reviewed article :
Oui
Audience :
Non spécifiée
Administrative institution(s) :
Université de Lille
CNRS
CHU Lille
CNRS
CHU Lille
Submission date :
2020-12-18T10:25:17Z
2021-01-04T10:30:10Z
2021-01-04T10:30:10Z
Files
- CCManuscript-FINAL-23-07-2020.pdf
- Version finale acceptée pour publication (postprint)
- Open access
- Access the document