scholarly journals Punishment insensitivity emerges from impaired contingency detection, not aversion insensitivity or reward dominance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel ◽  
Cassandra Ma ◽  
Laura A. Bradfield ◽  
Simon Killcross ◽  
Gavan P. McNally
Keyword(s):  
Contingency Detection ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Aversive Events ◽  
Analysis Strategies ◽  
Concurrent Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity To Punishment ◽  
Instrumental Control

AbstractOur behaviour is shaped by its consequences – we seek rewards and avoid harm. It has been reported that individuals vary markedly in their avoidance of detrimental consequences, i.e. in their sensitivity to punishment. The underpinnings of this variability are poorly understood; they may be driven by differences in aversion sensitivity, motivation for reward, and/or instrumental control. We examined these hypotheses by applying several analysis strategies to the behaviour of rats (n = 48; 18 female) trained in a task permitting concurrent assessment of punishment, reward-seeking, and Pavlovian fear. We show that punishment insensitivity is a unique phenotype, unrelated to differences in reward-seeking and Pavlovian fear, and due to a failure of instrumental control. Subjects insensitive to punishment are afraid of aversive events, they are simply unable to change their behaviour to avoid them.

scholarly journals Punishment insensitivity emerges from impaired contingency detection, not aversion insensitivity or reward dominance

eLife ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel ◽  
Cassandra Ma ◽  
Laura A Bradfield ◽  
Simon Killcross ◽  
Gavan P McNally
Keyword(s):  
Contingency Detection ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Aversive Events ◽  
Analysis Strategies ◽  
Concurrent Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity To Punishment ◽  
Instrumental Control

Our behaviour is shaped by its consequences – we seek rewards and avoid harm. It has been reported that individuals vary markedly in their avoidance of detrimental consequences, that is in their sensitivity to punishment. The underpinnings of this variability are poorly understood; they may be driven by differences in aversion sensitivity, motivation for reward, and/or instrumental control. We examined these hypotheses by applying several analysis strategies to the behaviour of rats (n = 48; 18 female) trained in a conditioned punishment task that permitted concurrent assessment of punishment, reward-seeking, and Pavlovian fear. We show that punishment insensitivity is a unique phenotype, unrelated to differences in reward-seeking and Pavlovian fear, and due to a failure of instrumental control. Subjects insensitive to punishment are afraid of aversive events, they are simply unable to change their behaviour to avoid them.

scholarly journals Punishment insensitivity in humans is due to failures in instrumental contingency learning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel ◽  
Jessica C. Lee ◽  
Shi Xian Liew ◽  
Gabrielle Weidemann ◽  
Peter F. Lovibond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Contingency Learning ◽  
Aversive Learning ◽  
Behavioural Inhibition ◽  
Contingency Detection ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Punishment Contingency ◽  
Individual Survival ◽  
Punishment Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity To Punishment

AbstractPunishment maximises the probability of our individual survival by reducing behaviours that cause us harm, and also sustains trust and fairness in groups essential for social cohesion. However, some individuals are more sensitive to punishment than others and these differences in punishment sensitivity have been linked to a variety of decision-making deficits and psychopathologies. The mechanisms for why individuals differ in punishment sensitivity are poorly understood, although recent studies of conditioned punishment in rodents highlight a key role for punishment contingency detection (Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel et al., 2019). Here we applied a novel “Planets & Pirates” conditioned punishment task in humans, allowing us to identify the mechanisms for why individuals differ in their sensitivity to punishment. We show that punishment sensitivity is bimodally distributed in a large sample of normal participants. Sensitive and insensitive individuals equally liked reward and showed similar rates of reward-seeking. They also equally disliked punishment and did not differ in their valuation of cues that signalled punishment. However, sensitive and insensitive individuals differed profoundly in their capacity to detect and learn volitional control over aversive outcomes. Punishment insensitive individuals did not learn the instrumental contingencies, so they could not withhold behaviour that caused punishment and could not generate appropriately selective behaviours to prevent impending punishment. These differences in punishment sensitivity could not be explained by individual differences in behavioural inhibition, impulsivity, or anxiety. This bimodal punishment sensitivity and these deficits in instrumental contingency learning are identical to those dictating punishment sensitivity in non-human animals, suggesting that they are general properties of aversive learning and decision making.

scholarly journals Punishment insensitivity in humans is due to failures in instrumental contingency learning

eLife ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel ◽  
Jessica C Lee ◽  
Shi Xian Liew ◽  
Gabrielle Weidemann ◽  
Peter F Lovibond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Contingency Learning ◽  
Aversive Learning ◽  
Behavioural Inhibition ◽  
Contingency Detection ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Punishment Contingency ◽  
Individual Survival ◽  
Punishment Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity To Punishment

Punishment maximises the probability of our individual survival by reducing behaviours that cause us harm, and also sustains trust and fairness in groups essential for social cohesion. However, some individuals are more sensitive to punishment than others and these differences in punishment sensitivity have been linked to a variety of decision-making deficits and psychopathologies. The mechanisms for why individuals differ in punishment sensitivity are poorly understood, although recent studies of conditioned punishment in rodents highlight a key role for punishment contingency detection (Jean-Richard-Dit-Bressel et al., 2019). Here, we applied a novel ‘Planets and Pirates’ conditioned punishment task in humans, allowing us to identify the mechanisms for why individuals differ in their sensitivity to punishment. We show that punishment sensitivity is bimodally distributed in a large sample of normal participants. Sensitive and insensitive individuals equally liked reward and showed similar rates of reward-seeking. They also equally disliked punishment and did not differ in their valuation of cues that signalled punishment. However, sensitive and insensitive individuals differed profoundly in their capacity to detect and learn volitional control over aversive outcomes. Punishment insensitive individuals did not learn the instrumental contingencies, so they could not withhold behaviour that caused punishment and could not generate appropriately selective behaviours to prevent impending punishment. These differences in punishment sensitivity could not be explained by individual differences in behavioural inhibition, impulsivity, or anxiety. This bimodal punishment sensitivity and these deficits in instrumental contingency learning are identical to those dictating punishment sensitivity in non-human animals, suggesting that they are general properties of aversive learning and decision-making.

scholarly journals Foot shock facilitates reward seeking in an experience-dependent manner

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
JA Strickland ◽  
AD Dileo ◽  
M Moaddab ◽  
MH Ray ◽  
RA Walker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maladaptive Behavior ◽  
Dependent Manner ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Aversive Events ◽  
Limited Experience ◽  
Long Evans ◽  
Positive Properties ◽  
Insight Into

AbstractAnimals organize reward seeking around aversive events. An abundance of research shows that foot shock, as well as a shock-associated cue, can elicit freezing and suppress reward seeking. Yet, there is evidence that experience can flip the effect of foot shock to facilitate reward seeking. Here we examine cue suppression, foot shock suppression and foot shock facilitation of reward seeking in a single behavioural setting. Male Long Evans rats received fear discrimination consisting of danger, uncertainty and safety cues. Discrimination took place over a baseline of rewarded nose poking. With limited experience, all cues and foot shock strongly suppressed reward seeking. With continued experience, suppression became specific to shock-associated cues and foot shock facilitated reward seeking. Our results provide a means of assessing positive properties of foot shock, and may provide insight into maladaptive behavior around aversive events.

Functional Amygdala-Hippocampus Connectivity During Anticipation of Aversive Events is Associated with Gray's Trait “Sensitivity to Punishment”

2010 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 459-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Hahn ◽  
Thomas Dresler ◽  
Michael M. Plichta ◽  
Ann-Christine Ehlis ◽  
Lena H. Ernst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aversive Events ◽  
Sensitivity To Punishment

Hope, exploration, and equilibrated action schemes

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davood G. Gozli ◽  
Ci Jun Gao
Keyword(s):  
Single Type ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Stable Scheme

AbstractThe concepts want, hope, and exploration cannot be organized in relation to a single type of motive (e.g., motive for food). They require, in addition, the motive for acquiring and maintaining a stable scheme that enables reward-directed activity. Facing unpredictability, the animal has to seek not only reward, but also a new equilibrated state within which reward seeking is possible.

The Effects of a Neutral Stimulus (Buzzer) on Motor Responses and Disfluencies in Normal Speakers

1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Martin ◽  
Gerald M. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Neutral Stimulus ◽  
Motor Responses ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
And Control ◽  
Speaking Task

Seventy-two college students were divided into three groups: Button Push-Speech (BP-S), Speech-Button Push (S-BP), and Control. BP-S subjects pushed one of two buttons on signal for 8 min. During the last 4 min, depression of the criterion button caused a buzzer to sound. After the button-push task, subjects spoke spontaneously for 30 min. During the last 20 min, the buzzer was presented contingent upon each disfluency. S-BP subjects were run under the same procedures, but the order of button-push and speech tasks was reversed. Control subjects followed the same procedures as S-BP subjects, but no buzzer signal was presented at any time. Both S-BP and BP-S subjects emitted significantly fewer disfluencies during the last 20 min (Conditioning) than during the first 10 min (Baserate) of the speaking task. The frequency of disfluencies for Control subjects did not change significantly from Baserate to Conditioning. In none of the three groups did the frequency of pushes on the criterion button change significantly from minute to minute throughout the 8-min button-push session.

The self-schema and addictive behaviors: Studies of alcoholic patients

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyril Tarquinio ◽  
Gustave Nicolas Fischer ◽  
Aurélie Gauchet ◽  
Jacques Perarnaud
Keyword(s):  
Decision Time ◽  
The Self ◽  
Addictive Behaviors ◽  
Social Judgments ◽  
Self Perceptions ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Self Schema ◽  
Description Task ◽  
Positive Traits ◽  
First Interview

This study deals with the sociocognitive organization of the self-schema in alcoholic patients. It was aimed at understanding how the self-schema takes shape within the framework of social judgments known to be determinants of personality. Alcoholic subjects were interviewed twice, once during their first consultation for treatment and then again four months later after completion of treatment. Our approach was derived directly from the methodology used by Markus (1977) and Clemmey & Nicassio (1997) in their studies on the self-schema. The subjects had to perform three tasks that required manipulating personality traits with positive and negative connotations (a self-description task in which decision time was measured, an autobiographical task, and a recall task). The results of the first interview showed that 1. in their self-descriptions, alcoholics took more time than control subjects both to accept positive traits and to reject negative ones; 2. unlike control subjects, alcoholics considered more negative traits to be self-descriptive than positive traits, and 3. unlike controls, alcoholics recalled more negative traits than positive ones. By the second interview, the results for the alcoholic subjects on the autobiographical and recall tasks had changed: 1. they now described themselves more positively and less negatively than on the first meeting; 2. they recalled a marginally greater number of positive traits and a significantly smaller number of negative traits, and 3. the differences between the alcoholics and controls indicated an improvement in the alcoholics' self-perceptions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document