scholarly journals A classically conditionable skeletal response can be acquired with a discriminated punishment contingency

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 551-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Prokasy ◽  
Craig G. Clark ◽  
William C. Williams ◽  
Charles W. Spurr
Keyword(s):  
Punishment Contingency

Punishment Contingency and Unethical Behavior: The Role of Uncertainty and Justice Perceptions

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (1) ◽  
pp. 16910
Author(s):  
Julena M. Bonner ◽  
Cynthia S. Wang ◽  
Rebecca L. Greenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Unethical Behavior ◽  
Punishment Contingency ◽  
Justice Perceptions

scholarly journals Discrete and coordinated encoding of punishment contingent on rewarded actions by prefrontal cortex and VTA

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junchol Park ◽  
Bita Moghaddam
Keyword(s):  
Spike Activity ◽  
Single Unit ◽  
Neural Representation ◽  
Theta Oscillations ◽  
Neural Synchrony ◽  
Field Potentials ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Punishment Contingency ◽  
Behavioral States ◽  
Free Actions

AbstractActions motivated by a rewarding outcome are often associated with a risk of punishment. Little is known about the neural representation of punishment that is contingent on reward-guided behavior. We modeled this circumstance by using a task where actions were consistently rewarded but probabilistically punished. Spike activity and local field potentials were recorded during this task simultaneously from VTA and mPFC, two reciprocally connected regions implicated in both reward-seeking and aversive behavioral states. At the single unit level, we found that ensembles of VTA and mPFC neurons encode the contingency between action and punishment. At the network level, we found that coherent theta oscillations synchronize the VTA and mPFC in a bottom-up direction, effectively phase-modulating the neuronal spike activity in the two regions during punishment-free actions. This synchrony declined as a function of punishment contingency, suggesting that during reward-seeking actions, risk of punishment diminishes VTA-driven neural synchrony between the two regions.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document