Jozefowiez Jérémie, Berruti Alaina S, Moshchenko Yaroslav, Peña Tori, Polack Cody W, Miller Ralph R
CNRS, UMR 9193.
Department of Psychology.
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2020 Oct;46(4):443-459. doi: 10.1037/xan0000272.
Following cue-outcome (X-O) pairings, 2 procedures that reduce conditioned responses to X are extinction, in which X is presented by itself, and counterconditioning, in which X is paired with a different outcome typically of valence opposite that of training. Although studies with animals have generally found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction in reducing responding, data from humans are less clear. They suggest counterconditioning is more efficient than extinction at interfering with emotional processing, but there is little difference between the two procedures regarding their impact on the verbal assessment of the probability of the outcome given the cue. However, issues of statistical power leave conclusions ambiguous. We compared counterconditioning and extinction in highly powered experiments that exploited a novel procedure. A rapid streamed-trial procedure was used in which participants were asked to rate how likely a target outcome was to accompany a target cue after being exposed to acquisition trials followed by extinction, counterconditioning, or neither. In Experiments 1 and 2, evaluative conditioning was assessed by asking participants to rate the pleasantness of the cues after treatment. These studies found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction at reducing evaluative conditioning but less efficient at decreasing the assessment of the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. The latter effect was replicated with neutral outcomes in Experiments 3 and 4, but the effect was inverted in Experiment 4 in conditions designed to preclude reinstatement of initial training by the question probing the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. Effect sizes were small (Cohen's d of 0.2 for effect on evaluative conditioning, Cohen's d of 0.3 for effect on the outcome expectancy). If representative, this poses a serious constraint in terms of statistical power for further investigations of differential efficiency of extinction and counterconditioning in humans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
在线索-结果（X-O）配对之后，有两种减少对X的条件反应的程序，即消退，其中单独呈现X；以及对抗条件作用，其中X与通常具有与训练时相反效价的不同结果配对。尽管对动物的研究通常发现，在减少反应方面，对抗条件作用比消退更有效，但来自人类的数据则不太明确。这些数据表明，在干扰情绪加工方面，对抗条件作用比消退更有效，但在它们对基于线索给出结果的可能性的言语评估的影响方面，这两种程序之间几乎没有差异。然而，统计功效问题使得结论模棱两可。我们在利用一种新程序的高功效实验中比较了对抗条件作用和消退。使用了一种快速流式试验程序，在该程序中，参与者在经历习得试验后，再进行消退、对抗条件作用或两者都不进行的操作后，被要求对目标结果伴随目标线索出现的可能性进行评分。在实验1和实验2中，通过要求参与者在处理后对线索的愉悦度进行评分来评估评价性条件作用。这些研究发现，在减少评价性条件作用方面，对抗条件作用比消退更有效，但在降低基于线索给出结果的条件概率的评估方面效率较低。在实验3和实验4中，用中性结果重复了后一种效应，但在实验4中，在旨在通过探测基于线索给出结果的条件概率的问题来防止初始训练恢复的条件下，该效应发生了反转。效应量很小（对评价性条件作用的影响，科恩d值为0.2；对结果预期的影响，科恩d值为0.3）。如果具有代表性，这在统计功效方面对进一步研究人类中消退和对抗条件作用的差异效率构成了严重限制。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
