Slowed reacquisition of a previously extinguished response: the effect of partial extinction in human contingency learning

Slowed reacquisition of a previously extinguished response: The effect of partial extinction in human contingency learning Joaquín Morís, Itsaso Barberia, Miguel Vadillo, Ainhoa Andrades & Francisco J. López XXVII Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Psicología Comparada. Sevilla, 9-11 septiembre 2015 Extinction of a fear response Limitations of extinction Relapse phenomena: Renewal, reinstatement, spontaneous recovery, rapid reacquisition... How to improve extinction? Partial extinction slowed later reacquisition Bouton et al. (2004, 2007) found: Reacquisition of a previously extinguished response (i.e., either conditioned or operant) slowed down when reinforced trials were included as part of the extinction treatment (i.e., partial extinction) Partial extinction as a way to mitigate this form of relapse Partial extinction slowed later reacquisition Bouton et al. (2004)’s results: After conditioning and extinction phases, reacquisition session in Experiment 1: Extinction: CSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSPartial extinction: CSCS+ CSCSCSCSCS+ CSFrom the extinction phase: Why slowed reacquisition? Bouton’s explanation: CS US Conditioning Re-acquisition CS US Ctx Partial Extinction CS-US.... CS US Ctx CS-US.... Objective Will an equivalent slow reacquisition effect be found in human contingency learning? In the aversive domain (a mild aversive noise) Focusing on participants’ beliefs about the extent to which they think the aversive noise will take place (cognitive component of a fear response) Experiment 1 Design: Group Acquisition Extinction Re-acquisition Partial Extinction (22,2%) A (18 +) B (18 ) A (12 + / 42 ) B (54 ) A (18 +) B (18 ) Extinction A (18 +) B (18 ) A (54 ) B (54 ) A (18 +) B (18 ) + Refers to a brief (500ms) mildly aversive noise ( 85dB) Refers to the absence of any stimulus) + Contingency learning task 4000 ms Until a response 3000 ms Response: How likely is the noise? 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 Expectancy ratings Trials Intermixed Group - Cue A Intermixed Group - Cue B Intermixed Group - Cue C Continuous Group - Cue A Continuous Group - Cue B Continuous Group - Cue C Partial Extinction – Cue A Partial Extinction – Cue B Partial Extinction – Cue C Extinction – Cue A Extinction – Cue B Extinction – Cue C Results Extinction: n=59 Within Cue A: Group, F(1, 57) = 27.39, p < .001, η2p = .325 Group x Trial, F(11.42, 651.11) = 1.92, p = .033, η2p = .033 Results n=59 Group x Cue x Trial, F(9.59, 546.4) = 2.27, p = .014, η2p = .038 Within Cue A: Group x Trial, F(5.02, 286.33) = 5.47, p < .001, η2p = .088 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Expectancy ratings Trials Intermixed Group - Cue A Intermixed Group - Cue B Intermixed Group - Cue C Continuous Group - Cue A Continuous Group - Cue B Continuous Group - Cue C Extinction – Cue A Extinction – Cue B Extinction – Cue C Partial Extinction – Cue A Partial Extinction – Cue B Partial Extinction – Cue C Re-acquisition: Discussion Again, re-acquisition was slower in the Partial Extinction than in the Extinction group And yet, in a more uncertain task; and reducing the number of reinforced trials in the partial extinction group As in Experiment 1, extinction was complete in the Extinction but not in the Partial Extinction group How to make extinction complete in the Partial Extinction group? Experiment 3 Design: Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Block 7 + 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 7 8 8 8 8 % Reinforced 62.5 37.5 12.5 0 0 0 0 Group Acquisition Extinction Re-acquisition Partial Extinction A ( 8 +) B (10 ) A (9 + / 47 ) B (54 ) A (10 +) B (10 ) Extinction A (10 +) B ( 8 ) A (56 ) B (54 ) A (10 +) B (10 ) (9 + / 47 ): Results Acquisition: n=65 Cue x Trial, F(2.87, 181.307) = 135.14, p < .001, η2p = .682 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Expectancy ratings Trials Results Extinction: n=65 Within Cue A: Group, F(1, 63) = 250.94, p < .001, η2p = .799 Group x Trial, F(11.42, 651.11) = 29.92, p < .001, η2p = .033 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 Expectancy ratings Trials Results n=65 Group x Cue x Trial, F(3.83, 243.3) = 5.27, p = .014, η2p = .038 Trial 2 and Trial 3: t(61.15) = 3.12, p = 0.003 and t(63) = 2.10, p = 0.04 Re-acquisition: 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Expectancy ratings Trials Discussion Extinction was also complete in the Partial Extinction group And still, the partial extinction treatment produced a slower reacquisition compared to a standard Extinction group Conclusions Experiments 1-3 showed that partially reinforced extinction produced a slowed reacquisition effect compared to standard extinction, equivalent to the effect found in animal conditioning Experiment 2 showed that the effect could also be obtained in uncertain situations Experiment 3 showed that the effect could still be found even when extinction, prior to the re-acquisition phase, was complete in the Partial extinction group Future directions Will the partially extinction effect generalize to more aversive situations or to other fear responses such judgments of fear, skin conductance, or startle responses? Will this form of relapse reduction generalize to the clinical domain?: Will a scarce exposure to the feared stimulus in exposurebased therapies reduce relapse?