The effect of gradual extinction training on the renewal of electrodermal conditional responses.

Extinction, the repeated presentation of a conditional stimulus (CS) without the unconditional stimulus (US), is the standard paradigm to reduce conditional responding acquired by the repeated pairing of CS and US in acquisition. However, this reduction of conditional responding is prone to relapse. In rodent fear-conditioning, gradual extinction, the fading out of CS-US pairings during extinction, has been shown to reduce the return of fear. The current study replicated the gradual extinction procedure in human fear conditioning and assessed whether it reduced the return of fear due to ABA renewal and reacquisition. During extinction, one group received standard extinction, a second received gradual extinction (increasing the spacing of USs presented after the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 15th CS+ trials), and a third received reversed extinction training (decreasing the spacing of USs presented after the 1st, 6th, 10th, 13th, and 15th CS+ trials). Larger renewal and faster reacquisition of differential electrodermal responses to CS+ and CS- were expected after standard and reversed extinction than after gradual extinction training. The results were inconclusive due to the failure to find extinction of differential electrodermal responses and US expectancy ratings in both gradual and reversed extinction groups. Despite successful extinction in group standard, renewal was only observed in US expectancy. Visualization of US expectancy ratings during extinction suggested that potential identification of the US presentation patterns during extinction in the gradual and reversed groups delayed extinction learning.

Signalling unpaired unconditional stimuli during extinction does not impair their effect to reduce renewal of conditional fear.

Presenting unpaired unconditional stimuli (US) during extinction training reduces the renewal of conditional fear due to context change and slows re-acquisition. The present study investigated whether this reduced return of fear is mediated by Pavlovian inhibitory conditioning to the conditional stimulus paired with the US during acquisition (CS+) that is acquired when this stimulus is presented without the US in an excitatory extinction context. Using an ABA renewal paradigm that trained extinction in a context different from acquisition and renewal test, participants either received no USs (Standard), five unsignalled US presentations (Unsignalled) or five presentations of the US preceded by a novel, third CS (Signalled) during extinction training. Extinction was followed by tests for renewal and re-acquisition. Replicating previous results, renewal of electrodermal conditional responses was observed in group Standard, but not in group Unsignalled. Signalling the additional USs, and thus reducing context conditioning and the potential for inhibitory conditioning, did not reduce their effect in that renewal was absent in group Signalled. These results are inconsistent with an inhibitory conditioning account of the effects of unpaired US presentations during extinction. A trial sequence learning account or an arousal account may explain the effects of unpaired presentations of the US during extinction.

Approximating exposure therapy in the lab: Replacing the CS+ with a similar versus a different stimulus and including additional stimuli resembling the CS+ during extinction.

Recent studies have shown that extinction training including the conditional stimulus (CS+) and stimuli that are similar to the CS + enhances extinction retention and generalisation to novel stimuli. However, in a clinical setting, the CS+ is rarely available for use during exposure therapy. The aim of the present study was to determine if replacing the CS+ with a similar versus different stimulus, and including other similar stimuli during extinction, could reduce fear at test on par with extinction using the original CS+ with and without other similar stimuli. In an experiment conducted in a single session, participants completed a habituation phase followed by an acquisition phase using two dog images presented with (CS+) and without (CS-) an acoustic unconditional stimulus (US). Participants were randomly allocated to four extinction conditions: similar CS + dog with novel dog images (Similar replacement extinction condition); different CS + dog with novel dog images (Different replacement extinction condition); original CS + dog with novel dog images (Multiple extinction control condition); and original CS + without novel dog images (Standard extinction control condition). All participants completed a test phase with the original CSs followed by a generalisation test with another two novel dog images. All groups acquired, and then extinguished differential skin conductance responses (SCRs) with no differences observed between groups. Whereas the Similar replacement extinction group and the Multiple and Standard extinction control groups did not exhibit significant differential SCRs when re-exposed to the original CS + relative to the CS- at test, differential responding to the CSs was significant at test in the Different replacement extinction group. There were no significant differences between groups in SCRs to the two novel dog images during the generalisation phase and in between-phase subjective ratings. Findings suggest that replacement stimuli used during extinction should be as similar as possible to the CS + to reduce physiological arousal to the original CS+.

The influence of instructions on generalised valence - conditional stimulus instructions after evaluative conditioning update the explicit and implicit evaluations of generalisation stimuli.

Generalisation in evaluative conditioning occurs when the valence acquired by a conditional stimulus (CS), after repeated pairing with an unconditional stimulus (US), spreads to stimuli that are similar to the CS (generalisation stimuli, GS). CS evaluations can be updated via CS instructions that conflict with prior conditioning (negative conditioning + positive instruction). We examined whether CS instructions can update GS evaluations after conditioning. We used alien stimuli where one alien (CSp) from a fictional group was paired with pleasant US images and another alien (CSu) from a different group was paired with unpleasant US images. The other members from the two groups were used as GSs. After conditioning, participants received negative CSp instructions and positive CSu instructions. In Experiment 1, explicit and implicit GS evaluations were measured before and after the instructions. In Experiment 2, we used a between-participants design where one group received positive/negative CS instructions while a control group received neutral instructions. In both experiments, the positive/negative CS instructions caused a reversal of explicit GS evaluations and an elimination of implicit GS evaluations. The findings suggest that generalised evaluations can change after CS instructions which may have implications for interventions aimed at reducing negative group attitudes.

The influence of cross unconditional stimulus reinstatement on electrodermal responding and conditional stimulus valence in differential fear conditioning.

We examined whether the inhibitory Conditional Stimulus (CS)-no Unconditional Stimulus (US) association formed during extinction can be triggered by a novel US during the reinstatement of conditional electrodermal responding and self-reported CS valence in human differential fear conditioning. Participants were trained with either a shock or an aversive scream US before undergoing extinction. Participants then received either the same (i.e., shock_shock or scream_scream) or a different US during reinstatement (i.e., shock_scream, scream_shock). Differential conditioning across all indices was stronger when a shock US was used during acquisition. After reinstatement, electrodermal responding to both the CS+ and the CS- increased regardless of the type of US used during reinstatement (non-differential reinstatement). Differential CS valence evaluations were larger after reinstatement in the groups that received the same US during acquisition and reinstatement (differential reinstatement), but differential evaluations did not increase in the groups receiving a different US at reinstatement. This dissociation suggests that the reinstatement of negative stimulus valence and the reinstatement of expectancy learning may differ.

Intolerance of uncertainty affects electrodermal responses during fear acquisition: Evidence from electrodermal responses to unconditional stimulus omission.

Past research has shown that Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) affects Pavlovian fear conditioning processes. In particular, extinction of learned fear is delayed in those reporting high IU. Reports of differences during acquisition are less consistent with most of the studies reporting no evidence for effects of IU. This may be due to past studies' focus on first interval electrodermal responses or fear potentiated startle, rather than on indices that may better capture uncertainty - like the response to the absence of a probabilistic unconditional stimulus. The current analysis combined data across three experiments that employed a 50 % reinforcement schedule and assessed electrodermal responses and (in two experiments) ratings of conditional stimulus pleasantness. Participants scoring high on IU showed overall larger electrodermal first interval responses during habituation and acquisition but did not differ from those scoring low on IU in differential conditioning (the difference between CS+ and CS-), as indicated by electrodermal first or second interval responses or ratings of CS pleasantness. However, participants high in IU showed larger differential third interval electrodermal responses to the omission of the electro-tactile unconditional stimulus during acquisition. Some evidence for this difference emerged in each experiment, supporting the reliability of the result. The current results suggest that effects of IU emerge in conditions of high uncertainty in Pavlovian fear learning tasks, such as during the omission of probabilistic unconditional stimuli.

Conceptual generalisation in fear conditioning using single and multiple category exemplars as conditional stimuli - electrodermal responses and valence evaluations generalise to the broader category.

Conceptual generalisation occurs when conditional responses generalise to novel stimuli from the same category. Past research demonstrates that physiological fear responses generalise across categories, however, conceptual generalisation of stimulus valence evaluations during fear conditioning has not been examined. We investigated whether conceptual generalisation, as indexed by electrodermal responses and stimulus evaluations, would occur, and differ after training with single or multiple conditional stimuli (CSs). Stimuli from two of four categories (vegetables, farm animals, clothing, and office supplies) were used as the CS+ (followed by an electric stimulus) or CS- (presented alone). Generalisation was assessed by presenting novel stimuli from the CS categories after acquisition, extinction, and reinstatement. One category exemplar was used as the CS+ and CS- in the single group, whereas three exemplars were used as the CS+ and CS- in the multiple group. Electrodermal responses generalised in acquisition and extinction but did not differ between groups. In the multiple group, CS evaluations generalised in acquisition and extinction, whereas generalisation was not evident in the single group. Training with multiple CSs also resulted in the extinction of stimulus valence. The current findings have implications for future research examining the generalisation of valence and for exposure-based treatments of anxiety.

Conditional stimulus choices affect fear learning: Comparing fear conditioning with neutral faces and shapes or angry faces.

Past fear conditioning studies have used different types of conditional stimuli (CSs). Whether this choice affects learning outcomes in particular when neutral stimuli (e.g., neutral faces vs. shapes) are used is unclear. Data were aggregated across nine studies using an electric shock unconditional stimulus to test for differences in acquisition and extinction of electrodermal responses and self-reported CS pleasantness when CSs were neutral faces or shapes (Experiment 1, N = 594) and when CSs were angry or neutral faces (Experiment 2, N = 157). Reliable electrodermal conditioning was observed in all stimulus conditions. We found stronger differential conditioning in electrodermal second interval responses and CS pleasantness and more pronounced extinction in CS pleasantness for neutral shape than neutral face CSs, but no differences in electrodermal first interval responses, the most frequently reported index of fear conditioning. For angry and neutral face CSs, there were no differences during acquisition, but the extinction of first and second interval electrodermal conditioning to angry faces was retarded relative to neutral faces. Acquisition of differential CS pleasantness, which was reliably observed for neutral face CSs, was absent for angry face CSs. The current results suggest that fear conditioning with a neutral face and shape CSs yields broadly similar results with differences limited to second interval electrodermal responses and CS pleasantness ratings. Using angry face CSs resulted in impaired extinction of electrodermal indices and no differential CS pleasantness ratings and should only be considered in studies designed to address questions about these specific CS materials.

The absence of differential electrodermal responding in the second half of acquisition does not indicate the absence of fear learning.

Many contemporary studies of human fear conditioning exclude participants who fail to show differential electrodermal responding during late stages of acquisition training, deeming them to be non-Learners. The current study examined whether non-Learners, defined as those who fail to show larger electrodermal first interval responses to CS+ than to CS- in the second half of acquisition, show differential electrodermal responding early during acquisition or during extinction or evidence of fear-learning on other measures, including rated CS valence and contingency report. In a sample of 351 participants who completed a standard differential fear-conditioning paradigm that employed electrodermal first and second interval responses (FIR, SIR), continuous CS evaluations, and post-experimental contingency reports to assess fear-learning, 74 participants were identified as non-Learners. These non-Learners displayed overall smaller electrodermal responses but showed evidence for differential conditioning during acquisition in electrodermal FIR (block1) and SIR (blocks 2-3) and in CS evaluations during acquisition (blocks 2-4) and extinction (blocks 1-4). Fifty-nine non-Learners correctly reported the contingencies. A lack of differential electrodermal first interval responding during the second half of acquisition does not indicate the absence of fear-learning. Rather, this criterion appears to capture participants who exhibit low physiological arousal and performance decrements toward the end of acquisition. Applying criteria based on "end of acquisition" electrodermal responding to determine "non-learning" results in the exclusion of participants who display fear-learning at other experimental stages or in other measures.

The effects of presenting additional stimuli resembling the CS+ during extinction on extinction retention and generalisation to novel stimuli.

Recent studies have shown that extinction training including the conditional stimulus (CS+) and stimuli similar to the CS + enhances extinction retention and generalisation to novel stimuli. The aim of the present study was to confirm that these effects are specific to presenting stimuli similar to the CS+ during extinction and not merely an effect of additional trials or additional stimuli unrelated to the CS+. In an experiment conducted in a single session on the same day, participants (134 adults; 70.7% female; 17-40 years of age, M = 20.04, SD = 4.36) completed a habituation phase followed by an acquisition phase using dog images presented with (CS+) and without (CS-) a dog growl paired with a scream unconditional stimulus (US). Participants were randomly allocated to four extinction conditions: Multiple exemplar extinction comprising the CSs and two novel dog images similar to the CS+; Standard extinction control matched for the number of CS+ and CS- presentations; Extended extinction control matched for the total number extinction trials, and Other stimuli extinction control comprising the CSs and two novel stimuli unrelated to the CS+. All participants completed an extinction test with the original CSs followed by a generalisation test with two novel dog images. Multiple, Standard and Other stimuli extinction groups exhibited larger skin conductance responses (SCRs) during extinction to the CSs compared to the Extended extinction group. SCRs to the additional dog images in the Multiple group were larger than SCRs to the additional CSs in the Extended group and the novel images in the Other stimuli group. There were no group differences in responses to the CSs during extinction test. Unlike the other groups, SCRs to the first presentation of the novel generalisation dogs did not differ from those to the last CS trials in extinction in the Multiple group. However, this group difference did not persist beyond the initial generalisation trial. Finally, the Multiple, Extended, and Other stimuli groups exhibited more negative CS evaluations after extinction, extinction test, and generalisation test than the Standard extinction group. The results suggest that extinction with the original CSs and additional stimuli resembling the CS + elevated physiological responses during extinction and reduced physiological responses to novel stimuli similar to the CSs. Further studies are needed including clinical samples and trial-by-trial evaluations of the stimuli presented.

Presentation of unpaired unconditional stimuli during extinction reduces renewal of conditional fear and slows re-acquisition.

Past research has shown that presenting unconditional stimuli (US) during extinction training, either paired with the conditional stimulus (CS) or explicitly unpaired, can reduce spontaneous recovery and slow the re-acquisition of conditional fear. Whether contextual renewal of conditioned fear as indexed by electrodermal responses and self-report measures of anxiety and CS evaluations is also reduced after presentation of paired or unpaired USs during extinction training is currently unclear. Three groups of participants (Paired, Unpaired, Standard Extinction) completed a sequence of habituation, acquisition, extinction, renewal, and re-acquisition phases. During extinction, five CS-US pairings were presented in group Paired, whereas five US were presented alone in group Unpaired. No US were presented during standard extinction. For all groups, extinction was conducted in a context that was different from that of the other phases. Extinction of differential electrodermal responding was evident in groups Unpaired and Standard, but not in group Paired. Contextual renewal and fast re-acquisition, as indexed by differential electrodermal responding, were evident in group Standard, but not in group Unpaired and differential electrodermal responding persisted in group Paired. After extinction, self-reported anxiety was higher in groups Paired and Unpaired, but differential CS evaluations were evident in group Paired only. The current results suggest that presenting additional unpaired USs during extinction training strengthens extinction and protects against the renewal of differential electrodermal responding.

Be careful what you say! - Evaluative change based on instructional learning generalizes to other similar stimuli and to the wider category.

In evaluative conditioning, a conditional stimulus (CS; e.g. a neutral picture) acquires positive/negative valence if it is paired with a pleasant/unpleasant unconditional stimulus (US; e.g. a positive/negative picture). This valence generalises to other stimuli similar to the CS and to the wider CS category. Being informed that the CS will be paired with the US induces a similar change in valence (instructional learning), but it is not clear whether instructional learning would also generalise. In Experiment 1, participants were informed that one shape would be paired with pleasant and another with unpleasant images. These instructions instilled conditional valence to the CSs which generalised to different shapes from the same category (generalisation stimuli). In Experiment 2, we replicated this finding in an implicit measure using stimuli varying in perceptual features. Participants were informed that three CSs from one category (e.g. vegetables) would be paired with pleasant images and three CSs from a second category (e.g. office supplies) would be paired with unpleasant images. This instruction instilled conditional valence to the CSs which generalised to novel exemplars from the same categories. This suggests that conditional valence instilled via instructions generalises to other stimuli - a finding with implications for prejudice and racism.

Contrast effects in backward evaluative conditioning: Exploring effects of affective relief/disappointment versus instructional information.

Past studies of backward evaluative conditioning (EC) have found an assimilation effect, in that neutral conditional stimuli (conditional stimulus [CS]) were found to acquire the valence of co-occurring unconditional stimuli (US). Recent studies employing a concurrent forward and backward conditioning paradigm with instructions suggesting a contrastive relation between the US and the backward CS have resulted in contrast effects, in that backward CSs acquired valence opposite to the US. The current research investigated whether these effects were in fact due to the instructions highlighting the contrastive relation between the US and CS, or whether affective relief/disappointment experienced at US offset could account for this result. Consistent with the hypothesized role of instructions, backward CS contrast effects occurred only when instructions highlighted the valence of the US and attributed control of that US to the CSs. In contrast to the affective relief/disappointment hypothesis, no backward CS contrast effects were found without such instructions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Startle during backward evaluative conditioning is not modulated by instructions.

Instructions highlighting that backward conditional stimuli (CSs) stop unconditional stimuli (USs) result in their acquiring valence opposite to that of the US on explicit measures of valence. We assessed whether such instructions would influence startle blink modulation in the same way. Two groups were presented with concurrent forward and backward evaluative conditioning (CS-US-CS) using cartoon aliens as CSs, and pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant sounds as USs. Startle magnitude was measured during conditioning and valence ratings were assessed after conditioning. Participants in the "start-stop" instructions group (n = 41) were instructed to learn whether CSs started or stopped US presentations, while participants in the "observe" instructions group (n = 41) were told to pay attention to the stimuli as they would be asked questions about them after the experiment. In the start-stop instructions group backward CSs paired with positive USs were rated as less pleasant than backward CSs paired with neutral and negative USs (contrast effect), whereas ratings of backward CSs did not differ in the observe instructions group. Startle magnitude was larger during backward CSs paired with positive USs in comparison to CSs paired with neutral or negative USs in both instruction groups. Startle blink modulation was unaffected by instructions, suggesting that startle indexes the emotional state at the time of probe presentation rather than CS valence based on propositional information about the function of the CS.

How disappointing: Startle modulation reveals conditional stimuli presented after pleasant unconditional stimuli acquire negative valence.

Past research on backward conditioning in evaluative and fear conditioning yielded inconsistent results in that self-report measures suggest that the conditional stimulus (CS) acquired the valence of the unconditional stimulus (US) in fear conditioning (assimilation effects), but the opposite valence in evaluative conditioning (contrast effects). Conversely, implicit measures of CS valence suggest assimilation effects in evaluative backward conditioning, whereas startle modulation indicates contrast effects in backward fear conditioning. The current study investigated whether US intensity could account for the dissociation on implicit measures between fear and evaluative conditioning. Self-report measures of evaluative learning indicated assimilation effects for forward conditioning, whereas backward contrast effects were observed with intense USs only. Blink startle modulation indicated assimilation effects in forward conditioning and contrast effects in backward conditioning, regardless of US intensity. Experiment 2 included a neutral US in order to assess whether the offset of the positive US elicits an opponent emotional response that mirrors relief (disappointment), which is thought to mediate the reduction in startle seen during backward CSs in fear conditioning. This opponent emotional response was evident as startle magnitude during backward CSs increased linearly with increasing US pleasantness. Omission of the forward CSs led to an assimilation effect in self-report measures. The current results extend our understanding of emotional learning to stimuli encountered after salient emotional events. Startle reflects the emotion prevailing after US offset, relief or disappointment, whereas self-report measures seem more attuned to factors such as US predictability and intensity.

Measuring unconditional stimulus expectancy during evaluative conditioning strengthens explicit conditional stimulus valence.

During evaluative conditioning, a neutral conditional stimulus (CS) becomes pleasant or unpleasant after pairings with a positive/negative unconditional stimulus (US). Measures of US expectancy are commonly assessed during conditioning but it is unclear whether this affects evaluative learning. In Experiment 1, we examined whether the concurrent assessment of US expectancy alongside measures of CS valence would influence the acquisition, extinction, and reinstatement of explicit CS valence. Participants rated both valence and expectancy during conditioning (valence/expectancy group) or only CS valence (valence only group). Evaluative conditioning was acquired in both groups during acquisition, but its magnitude was enhanced in the valence/expectancy group. Measuring US expectancy did not influence the extinction or reinstatement of conditional valence. In Experiment 2, we confirmed the enhancement of evaluative conditioning due to concurrent measurement of US expectancy in an explicit measure, but did not find corresponding evidence in an implicit measure of conditional valence. In Experiment 3, we replicated the results using a different US expectancy scale and demonstrated that measuring CS valence multiple times throughout conditioning also strengthens conditional valence. Overall, the results suggest that the measurement of US expectancy and CS valence throughout conditioning draws attention to the contingencies and strengthens explicit evaluative learning.

"Prepared" fear or socio-cultural learning? Fear conditioned to guns, snakes, and spiders is eliminated by instructed extinction in a within-participant differential fear conditioning paradigm.

Across three experiments, we investigated whether electrodermal responses conditioned to ontogenetic fear-relevant (pointed guns) and phylogenetic fear-relevant stimuli (snakes and spiders) would resist instructed extinction in a within-participant differential fear conditioning paradigm. Instructed extinction involves informing participants before extinction that the unconditional stimulus (US) will no longer be presented. This manipulation has been shown to abolish fear conditioned to fear-irrelevant conditional stimuli, but is said to leave fear conditioned to images of snakes and spiders intact. The latter finding, however, has only been demonstrated when fear-relevance is manipulated between-groups. It is also not known whether instructed extinction affects fear conditioned to ontogenetic fear-relevant stimuli, such as pointed guns. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that fear conditioned to images of pointed guns does not resist instructed extinction. In Experiment 2, we detected some evidence to suggest that fear conditioned to images of snakes and spiders survives instructed extinction but this evidence was not conclusive. In Experiment 3, we directly compared the effects of instructed extinction on fear conditioned to snakes and spiders and to guns and provide strong evidence that fear conditioned to both classes of stimuli is reduced after instructed extinction with no differences between ontogenetic and phylogenetic stimuli. The current results suggest that when fear relevance is manipulated within-participants fear conditioned to both phylogenetic and ontogenetic, fear-relevant stimuli responds to instructed extinction providing evidence in favor of a socio-cultural explanation for "preparedness" effects.

Evaluative conditioning affects the subsequent acquisition of differential fear conditioning as indexed by electrodermal responding and stimulus evaluations.

It is currently unclear whether the acquisition of negative stimulus valence in evaluative and fear conditioning paradigms is interrelated or independent. The present study used a transfer paradigm to address this question. Three groups of participants were trained in a picture-picture evaluative conditioning paradigm before completing acquisition of differential fear conditioning using graphical shapes as conditional stimuli (CSs). In group congruent, the shape used as CS+ (paired with the US during fear conditioning) was paired with negative pictures, whereas the shape used as CS- (presented alone during fear conditioning) was paired with positive pictures. In group incongruent, the shape used as CS+ was paired with positive pictures, whereas the shape used as CS- was paired with negative pictures. In group different, different shapes were employed in evaluative and fear conditioning. Acquisition of differential electrodermal responses emerged within fewer acquisition trials in groups congruent and different than in group incongruent. Transfer of evaluative learning across paradigms was evident only after removal of participants who failed to display evaluative conditioning. The current research indicates that stimulus valence acquired during evaluative conditioning transfers to fear conditioning and will differentially affect the acquisition of fear learning as indexed by subjective evaluations and electrodermal responses. The findings suggest that evaluative and fear conditioning are not independent.

Relapse of evaluative learning-Evidence for reinstatement, renewal, but not spontaneous recovery, of extinguished evaluative learning in a picture-picture evaluative conditioning paradigm.

In evaluative conditioning, if one shape (conditional stimulus [CS]; CSp) is paired with pleasant unconditional stimulus (US) images and another (CSu) is paired with unpleasant US images differential CS valence and US expectancy develops, such that participants evaluate the CSp as more pleasant and more predictive of pleasant images than the CSu. This conditional CS valence and US expectancy can be reduced in an extinction procedure in which the CSs are repeatedly presented alone. We investigated whether evaluative and expectancy learning is subject to relapse (spontaneous recovery, reinstatement, and renewal) after extinction in a picture-picture evaluative conditioning paradigm. In Stream 1, after acquisition and extinction, the spontaneous recovery test was completed after a delay. During the spontaneous recovery test, conditional expectancy learning, but not conditional evaluative learning, returned. In Stream 2, the US pictures were presented in a random stream after extinction (reinstatement manipulation) which led to the return of conditional evaluative and expectancy learning. In Stream 3, after acquisition training in Context A and extinction training in Context B, conditional expectancy and evaluative learning returned when participants completed the renewal test in the acquisition context (Context A; ABA renewal). Overall, the results suggest that conditional evaluative learning is subject to reinstatement and renewal, but not to spontaneous recovery, in a picture-picture evaluative conditioning paradigm. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Novel approaches for strengthening human fear extinction: The roles of novelty, additional USs, and additional GSs.

Since Watson and Rayner's (1920) initial demonstration that human fear can be learned by means of Pavlovian conditioning, neuroscientific and behavioral studies have provided a thorough understanding of fear acquisition. Less is known about the manner in which we can harness insights from Pavlovian conditioning research to reduce fears and, most importantly, make the reduction of fear lasting and resistant against relapse. The current paper reviews three manipulations that have shown promise in achieving a reduction of conditional fear that is more resistant to relapse than is the reduction of conditional fear after standard extinction: novelty-facilitated extinction training, presentation of conditional-unconditional stimulus pairings or of unpaired unconditional stimuli during extinction, and extinction with additional stimuli that are similar to the original conditional stimuli. It summarizes past research involving human and non-human animal subjects and highlights knowledge gaps in the current literature. Moreover, it discusses potential mechanisms that mediate the reduction of fear seen as a result of these manipulations in an attempt to enhance our understanding of what renders fear extinction less vulnerable to the known pathways to fear relapse. It is hoped that this review will contribute to the achievement of the goal that was denied to Watson and Rayner, the development of experimental techniques that can be utilized to remove conditioned emotional responses permanently.