Cited by 70Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Effect of continuous and partial reinforcement on the acquisition and extinction of human conditioned fear

Grady, Ashley K., Bowen, Kenton H., Hyde, Andrew T., Totsch, Stacie K., Knight, David C.·2016·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Extinction of Pavlovian conditioned fear in humans is a popular paradigm often used to study learning and memory processes that mediate anxiety-related disorders. Fear extinction studies often only pair the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (UCS) on a subset of acquisition trials (i.e., partial reinforcement/pairing) to prolong extinction (i.e., partial reinforcement extinction effect; PREE) and provide more time to study the process. However, there is limited evidence that the partial pairing procedures typically used during fear conditioning actually extend the extinction process, while there is strong evidence these procedures weaken conditioned response (CR) acquisition. Therefore, determining conditioning procedures that support strong CR acquisition and that also prolong the extinction process would benefit the field. The present study investigated 4 separate CS-UCS pairing procedures to determine methods that support strong conditioning and that also exhibit a PREE. One group (C-C) of participants received continuous CS-UCS pairings; a second group (C-P) received continuous followed by partial CS-UCS pairings; a third group (P-C) received partial followed by continuous CS-UCS pairings; and a fourth group (P-P) received partial CS-UCS pairings during acquisition. A strong skin conductance CR was expressed by C-C and P-C groups but not by C-P and P-P groups at the end of the acquisition phase. The P-C group maintained the CR during extinction. In contrast, the CR extinguished quickly within the C-C group. These findings suggest that partial followed by continuous CS-UCS pairings elicit strong CRs and prolong the extinction process following human fear conditioning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bne0000121

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grady, A. K., Bowen, K. H., Hyde, A. T., Totsch, S. K., & Knight, D. C.
Affiliations
University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2016
Volume
130
Issue
1
Pages
36-43
ISSN
  • 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0084
OpenAlex
W2417828356
Cited by
70
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
fear extinction, partial reinforcement extinction effect, conditioned response acquisition, skin conductance, anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Conditioning, Psychological, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reinforcement, Psychology, Time Factors, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review