scholarly journals Conditioned inhibition training of the competing cue after compound conditioning does not reduce cue competition

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony S. Rauhut ◽  
Janice E. Mcphee ◽  
Norma T. Dipietro ◽  
John J. B. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Cue Competition ◽  
Compound Conditioning ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition Training ◽  
Inhibition Training

Summation and retardation test performance following extinction or Pavlovian conditioned inhibition training

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 101642
Author(s):  
Rachel A. Richardson ◽  
Paige N. Michener ◽  
Courtney L. Gann ◽  
Isabella M. North ◽  
Todd R. Schachtman
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Retardation Test ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition Training ◽  
Inhibition Training

scholarly journals The ability of an extinguished CS and a CS given conditioned inhibition training to pass tests for inhibition

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Rachel Anne Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Conditioning Procedure ◽  
Wagner Model ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition Training ◽  
Inhibition Training ◽  
Classical Conditioning Procedure

Conditioned inhibition (CI) is a classical conditioning procedure that results in a conditioned stimulus (CS) that predicts the absence of an unconditioned stimulus (US). A procedure known as Pavlovian conditioned inhibition training is the most common procedure for producing CI. In this procedure, a nontarget CS (CS A) is paired with the US and then CS A is presented with the target CS (CS X) without the US. Therefore, AUS trials and AX-noUS trials are given. CS X acquires inhibitory properties during these AX trials. Research has shown that extinction also produces CI. Extinction occurs when a CS (CS X) is paired with the US during conditioning and then this CS is presented alone without the US. The Rescorla-Wagner model predicts that the two CSs during AX-noUS trials will compete for learning and this should lead to slow and limited learning about those cues (a loss of excitation for CS A and inhibition acquired for CS X) due to this competition. During extinction trials, CS X does not compete for learning, so the subject should learn rapidly about the CS. The following experiments found that extinction produced less inhibition than Pavlovian conditioned inhibition training.

Blocking of Conditioned Inhibition in Human Causal Learning

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 381-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Lotz ◽  
Bram Vervliet ◽  
Harald Lachnit
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Causal Learning ◽  
Cue Competition ◽  
Learning Study ◽  
Human Causal Learning

Compared to blocking of conditioned excitation, which is one of the most investigated cue competition phenomena, blocking of conditioned inhibition has more or less been neglected in conditioning research. We conducted a human causal learning study and found evidence for blocking of conditioned inhibition. The results favor the view that inhibition is the symmetrical opposite of excitation, underlying the same general principles.

Conditioned Inhibition in a Multiple Category Learning Task

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (1b) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. O'Boyle ◽  
Mark E. Boutton
Keyword(s):  
Category Learning ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Cue Competition ◽  
Delta Rule ◽  
Multiple Category ◽  
Predictive Strength

Four experiments investigated inhibition that might arise in a task in which cues are associated with more than one outcome. In each experiment, human subjects played a game called “Clues and Culprits” in which they were asked to judge the predictive strength of clues that had been associated with culprits in a series of hypothetical crimes. In a two-outcome version of the familiar conditioned inhibition paradigm (A+, AX-), one clue was paired with one culprit on its own, but it was paired with a second culprit when it was combined with a second clue (A-1, AX-2). According to the delta rule, X should acquire inhibition for the first culprit; it should also acquire more inhibition than a differential cue merely associated with a second culprit (e.g. A-1, X-2). Inhibition was found with both procedures. However, the amount of inhibition did not differ between them, suggesting that mere association with a second outcome was sufficient to inhibit performance based on the first. Other data suggested the presence of cue competition. Also, when a cue associated with one culprit was paired with a second culprit on other trials, there was little evidence of unlearning of the first association.

Taste Aversion: Serial Compound Stimulus and Conditioned Inhibition

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Hinderliter ◽  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Bernadine M. Santai ◽  
Kimberly E. Bautz ◽  
Ann A. Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Taste Aversion ◽  
Conditioned Inhibition ◽  
Compound Stimulus ◽  
Serial Compound

Randomized-controlled trial of response inhibition training for individuals with PTSD and impaired response inhibition

2021 ◽  
pp. 103885
Author(s):  
Aileen Echiverri-Cohen ◽  
Lucas Spierer ◽  
Marcelina Perez ◽  
Melissa Kulon ◽  
Montana Daunbi Ellis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Inhibition Training

scholarly journals Effects of tDCS during inhibitory control training on performance and PTSD, aggression and anxiety symptoms: a randomized-controlled trial in a military sample

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Fenne M. Smits ◽  
Elbert Geuze ◽  
Dennis J. L. G. Schutter ◽  
Jack van Honk ◽  
Thomas E. Gladwin
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Impulsive Aggression ◽  
The Right ◽  
Inhibition Training

Abstract Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and impulsive aggression are linked to transdiagnostic neurocognitive deficits. This includes impaired inhibitory control over inappropriate responses. Prior studies showed that inhibitory control can be improved by modulating the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in combination with inhibitory control training. However, its clinical potential remains unclear. We therefore aimed to replicate a tDCS-enhanced inhibitory control training in a clinical sample and test whether this reduces stress-related mental health symptoms. Methods In a preregistered double-blind randomized-controlled trial, 100 active-duty military personnel and post-active veterans with PTSD, anxiety, or impulsive aggression symptoms underwent a 5-session intervention where a stop-signal response inhibition training was combined with anodal tDCS over the right IFG for 20 min at 1.25 mA. Inhibitory control was evaluated with the emotional go/no-go task and implicit association test. Stress-related symptoms were assessed by self-report at baseline, post-intervention, and after 3-months and 1-year follow-ups. Results Active relative to sham tDCS neither influenced performance during inhibitory control training nor on assessment tasks, and did also not significantly influence self-reported symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, impulsive aggression, or depression at post-assessment or follow-up. Conclusions Our results do not support the idea that anodal tDCS over the right IFG at 1.25 mA enhances response inhibition training in a clinical sample, or that this tDCS-training combination can reduce stress-related symptoms. Applying different tDCS parameters or combining tDCS with more challenging tasks might provide better conditions to modulate cognitive functioning and stress-related symptoms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document