Cited by 141Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Neural systems underlying aversive conditioning in humans with primary and secondary reinforcers

Open access
Delgado, Mauricio R., Jou, Rita L., Phelps, Elizabeth A.·2011·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Money is a secondary reinforcer commonly used across a range of disciplines in experimental paradigms investigating reward learning and decision-making. The effectiveness of monetary reinforcers during aversive learning and associated neural basis, however, remains a topic of debate. Specifically, it is unclear if the initial acquisition of aversive representations of monetary losses depends on similar neural systems as more traditional aversive conditioning that involves primary reinforcers. This study contrasts the efficacy of a biologically defined primary reinforcer (shock) and a socially defined secondary reinforcer (money) during aversive learning and its associated neural circuitry. During a two-part experiment, participants first played a gambling game where wins and losses were based on performance to gain an experimental bank. Participants were then exposed to two separate aversive conditioning sessions. In one session, a primary reinforcer (mild shock) served as an unconditioned stimulus (US) and was paired with one of two colored squares, the conditioned stimuli (CS+ and CS-, respectively). In another session, a secondary reinforcer (loss of money) served as the US and was paired with one of two different CS. Skin conductance responses were greater for CS+ compared to CS- trials irrespective of type of reinforcer. Neuroimaging results revealed that the striatum, a region typically linked with reward-related processing, was found to be involved in the acquisition of aversive conditioned response irrespective of reinforcer type. In contrast, the amygdala was involved during aversive conditioning with primary reinforcers, as suggested by both an exploratory fMRI analysis and a follow-up case study with a patient with bilateral amygdala damage. Taken together, these results suggest that learning about potential monetary losses may depend on reinforcement learning related systems, rather than on typical structures involved in more biologically based fears.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2011.00071

Cites

57 of 58 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The effects of damage to the human amygdala on emotion and emotional experience are much more subtle than the effects of damage to the OFC.

    “Although the amygdala has many of the same connections as the OFC (Fig. 2), it is an evolutionarily old brain region, and appears to be overshadowed by the OFC in humans, in that the effects of damage to the human amygdala on emotion and emotional experience are much more subtle (Whalen and Phelps, 2009; Delgado et al., 2011; LeDoux and Pine, 2016; LeDoux et al., 2018) than that of damage to the”

    From The orbitofrontal cortex: reward, emotion and depression (2020) · cites this paper as Delgado et al., 2011

  • The neuroimaging literature is profoundly inconsistent on the role of the striatum in aversive learning, with some studies reporting increased VS activity in aversive contexts and others reporting decreased activity.

    “the neuroimaging literature is profoundly inconsistent on this point, with some studies reporting increased VS activity in aversive contexts (Figure 2c) [62–64] and others reporting decreasing activity in this area during the prediction, learning, and receipt of aversive outcomes [65,66].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delgado, M. R., Jou, R. L., & Phelps, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Phelps, Elizabeth A.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2011
Volume
5
Pages
71-71
ISSN
  • 1662-453X (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-4548
OpenAlex
W2136145111
Cited by
141
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080756)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA027764)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
aversive conditioning, primary reinforcers, secondary reinforcers, financial losses, shock, fear conditioning, striatum, amygdala, amygdala damage, reinforcement learning, skin conductance, gambling

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