While a body of literature has addressed the quantification of aversive Pavlovian conditioning in humans, Pavlovian reward conditioning with primary reinforcers and its recall after overnight consolidation remain understudied. In particular, few studies have directly compared different conditioned response types and their retrodictive validity. Here, we sought to fill this gap by investigating heart period responses (HPR), skin conductance responses (SCR), pupil size responses (PSR), and respiration amplitude responses (RAR). We conducted two independent experiments (N(1)â=â37, N(2)â=â34) with a learning phase and a recall phase 7âdays later. A visual conditioned stimulus (CS+) predicted fruit juice reward (unconditioned stimulus, US), while a second CS- predicted US absence. In experiment 1, model-based analysis of HPR distinguished CS+/CS-, both during learning (Hedge's gâ=â0.56) and recall (gâ=â0.40). Furthermore, model-based analysis of PSR distinguished CS+/CS- in early trials during recall (gâ=â0.69). As an out-of-sample generalization test, experiment 2 confirmed the result for HPR during learning (gâ=â0.78) and recall (gâ=â0.55), as well as for PSR during recall (gâ=â0.41). In contrast, peak-scoring analysis of PSR yielded low retrodictive validity. We conclude that in our Pavlovian reward conditioning paradigm, HPR is a valid measure of reward learning, while both HPR and PSR validly index the retention of reward memory.
Measuring Human Pavlovian Reward Conditioning and Memory Retention After Consolidation.
阅读:4
作者:Xia Yanfang, Liu Huaiyu, Kälin Oliver K, Gerster Samuel, Bach Dominik R
| 期刊: | Psychophysiology | 影响因子: | 2.800 |
| 时间: | 2025 | 起止号: | 2025 Apr;62(4):e70058 |
| doi: | 10.1111/psyp.70058 | ||
特别声明
1、本文转载旨在传播信息,不代表本网站观点,亦不对其内容的真实性承担责任。
2、其他媒体、网站或个人若从本网站转载使用,必须保留本网站注明的“来源”,并自行承担包括版权在内的相关法律责任。
3、如作者不希望本文被转载,或需洽谈转载稿费等事宜,请及时与本网站联系。
4、此外,如需投稿,也可通过邮箱info@biocloudy.com与我们取得联系。
