Measuring Human Pavlovian Reward Conditioning and Memory Retention After Consolidation.
Saved in:
| Title: | Measuring Human Pavlovian Reward Conditioning and Memory Retention After Consolidation. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Xia, Yanfang (AUTHOR), Liu, Huaiyu (AUTHOR), Kälin, Oliver K. (AUTHOR), Gerster, Samuel (AUTHOR), Bach, Dominik R. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Psychophysiology. Apr2025, Vol. 62 Issue 4, p1-13. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Classical conditioning, Galvanic skin response, Conditioned response, Reward (Psychology), Associative learning |
| Abstract: | 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 (N1 = 37, N2 = 34) with a learning phase and a recall phase 7 days 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 g = 0.56) and recall (g = 0.40). Furthermore, model‐based analysis of PSR distinguished CS+/CS− in early trials during recall (g = 0.69). As an out‐of‐sample generalization test, experiment 2 confirmed the result for HPR during learning (g = 0.78) and recall (g = 0.55), as well as for PSR during recall (g = 0.41). 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. Impact statement: Pavlovian appetitive conditioning is an important experimental model, but its quantification remains heterogeneous. In a study with visual CS and primary US (fruit juice), we show that heart period response (HPR) robustly and replicably measures reward learning, and the retention of reward memory after 7 days. These findings may be beneficial for future work on reward learning and its memory retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Psychophysiology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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 (N1 = 37, N2 = 34) with a learning phase and a recall phase 7 days 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 g = 0.56) and recall (g = 0.40). Furthermore, model‐based analysis of PSR distinguished CS+/CS− in early trials during recall (g = 0.69). As an out‐of‐sample generalization test, experiment 2 confirmed the result for HPR during learning (g = 0.78) and recall (g = 0.55), as well as for PSR during recall (g = 0.41). 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. Impact statement: Pavlovian appetitive conditioning is an important experimental model, but its quantification remains heterogeneous. In a study with visual CS and primary US (fruit juice), we show that heart period response (HPR) robustly and replicably measures reward learning, and the retention of reward memory after 7 days. These findings may be beneficial for future work on reward learning and its memory retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00485772 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/psyp.70058 |
