Associative learning versus fear habituation as predictors of long-term extinction retention

ABSTRACT

Violation of unconditioned stimulus (US) expectancy during extinction training may enhance associative learning and result in improved long-term extinction retention compared to within-session habituation. This experiment examines variation in US expectancy (i.e., expectancy violation) as a predictor of long-term extinction retention. It also examines within-session habituation of fear-potentiated startle (electromyography, EMG) and fear of conditioned stimuli (CS) throughout extinction training as predictors of extinction retention. Participants (n = 63) underwent fear conditioning, extinction and retention and provided continuous ratings of US expectancy and EMG, as well as CS fear ratings before and after each phase. Variation in US expectancy throughout extinction and habituation of EMG and fear was entered into a regression as predictors of retention and reinstatement of levels of expectancy and fear. Greater variation in US expectancy throughout extinction training was significantly predictive of enhanced extinction performance measured at retention test, although not after reinstatement test. Slope of EMG and CS fear during extinction did not predict retention of extinction. Within-session habituation of EMG and self-reported fear is not sufficient for long-term retention of extinction learning, and models emphasizing expectation violation may result in enhanced outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

• Expectation violation
• inhibitory learning
• fear conditioning
• fear extinction
• anxiety

View correction statement:

Erratum

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The mean US level chosen was 42.6 (SD = 11.6; range 20–70; maximum possible = 85).

2. Participants were randomized to one of three experimental conditions that were collapsed for all analyses in the current study due to lack of significant findings on all outcome variables. As described in Appendix 1 and 2, these conditions only differed in the writing task to which participants were assigned following extinction; a no writing condition, writing about the extinction training, and writing about topics unrelated to extinction.