Avoidance response evocation as a function of prior discriminative fear conditioning under curare.

1964 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell C. Leaf
Keyword(s):  
Avoidance Response ◽  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Discriminative Fear Conditioning

Prefrontal cortical contributions during discriminative fear conditioning, extinction, and spontaneous recovery in rats

2010 ◽  
Vol 203 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin L. Zelinski ◽  
Nancy S. Hong ◽  
Amanda V. Tyndall ◽  
Brett Halsall ◽  
Robert J. McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Spontaneous Recovery ◽  
Prefrontal Cortical ◽  
Discriminative Fear Conditioning ◽  
Conditioning Extinction

Safety behaviours preserve threat beliefs: Protection from extinction of human fear conditioning by an avoidance response

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 716-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter F. Lovibond ◽  
Christopher J. Mitchell ◽  
Erin Minard ◽  
Alison Brady ◽  
Ross G. Menzies
Keyword(s):  
Avoidance Response ◽  
Fear Conditioning

Joint Effects of Intertrial and Intersession Interval upon Avoidance Learning

1964 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Robert Brush ◽  
James S. Myer ◽  
Michael E. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Avoidance Response ◽  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Avoidance Learning ◽  
Avoidance Training ◽  
Intertrial Interval ◽  
Original Learning ◽  
Factorial Experiment ◽  
Joint Effects ◽  
Intersession Interval ◽  
Interval Functions

The effect of intertrial and intersession interval on the relearning of an incompletely learned avoidance response was studied in a factorial experiment having three intertrial intervals—½, 1, and 2 min.—and five intersession intervals—.08, 1, 4, 24, and 168 hr. Original learning was avoidance training to a criterion, and relearning was 40 trials of the same training. Five groups of 10 rats, matched for rate of original learning, were trained at each intertrial interval. The number of avoidance responses during relearning was a U-shaped function of intersession interval for all intertrial intervals. During the first 10 relearning trials, the maximum interfering effect occurred after an intersession interval of 24 hr. in the ½-min. groups and after 4 hr. in the 1- and 2-min. groups. During the rest of relearning, maximum interference was reached after 1 hr., and the intersession interval functions were independent of intertrial interval, except for over-all level. These results were interpreted in terms of a “parasympathetic over-reaction” following fear conditioning.

scholarly journals Impaired discriminative fear-conditioning resulting from elevated fear responding to learned safety cues among individuals with panic disorder

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shmuel Lissek ◽  
Stephanie J. Rabin ◽  
Dana J. McDowell ◽  
Sharone Dvir ◽  
Daniel E. Bradford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Learned Safety ◽  
Discriminative Fear Conditioning

scholarly journals Discriminative Fear Learners are Resilient to Temporal Distortions during Threat Anticipation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica I. Lake ◽  
Warren H. Meck ◽  
Kevin S. LaBar
Keyword(s):  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Fear Learning ◽  
Ordinal Comparison ◽  
Timing Task ◽  
Skin Conductance Responses ◽  
Experience Of Time ◽  
Irrelevant Distractors ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
Attentional Models ◽  
Discriminative Fear Conditioning

Discriminative fear conditioning requires learning to dissociate between safety cues and cues that predict negative outcomes yet little is known about what processes contribute to discriminative fear learning. According to attentional models of time perception, processes that distract from timing result in temporal underestimation. If discriminative fear learning only requires learning what cues predict what outcomes, and threatening stimuli distract attention from timing, then better discriminative fear learning should predict greater temporal distortion on threat trials. Alternatively, if discriminative fear learning also reflects a more accurate perceptual experience of time in threatening contexts, discriminative fear learning scores would predict less temporal distortion on threat trials, as time is perceived more veridically. Healthy young adults completed discriminative fear conditioning in which they learned to associate one stimulus (CS+) with aversive electrical stimulation and another stimulus (CS−) with non-aversive tactile stimulation and then an ordinal-comparison timing task during which CSs were presented as task-irrelevant distractors. Consistent with predictions, we found an overall temporal underestimation bias on CS+ relative to CS− trials. Differential skin conductance responses to the CS+ versus the CS− during conditioning served as a physiological index of discriminative fear conditioning and this measure predicted the magnitude of the underestimation bias, such that individuals exhibiting greater discriminative fear conditioning showed less underestimation on CS+ versus CS− trials. These results are discussed with respect to the nature of discriminative fear learning and the relationship between temporal distortions and maladaptive threat processing in anxiety.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document