Transfer between anticipatory and consummatory tasks involving reward loss

Abstract

Does recovery from reward devaluation or partial reinforcement (PR) involve the counterconditioning of frustration? Transfer among tasks involving reward loss was used to uncover frustration counterconditioning. In Experiment 1, Phase 1 training in consummatory successive negative contrast (cSNC; 32-to-4% sucrose devaluation) eliminated Phase 2 iSNC in one-way avoidance (40-to-3 s safety-time reduction), but the opposite sequence generated no detectable transfer. In Experiment 2, transfer from Phase 1 cSNC to Phase 2 autoshaping extinction after continuous reinforcement increased lever pressing in previously downshifted animals relative to unshifted controls. However, Phase 1 training in autoshaping under partial reinforcement (PR) had no effect on Phase 2 cSNC. Transfer from PR to cSNC also failed when sucrose pellets were used in autoshaping (Experiment 3), when autoshaping acquisition was extended from 100 to 300 trials (Experiment 4), and when preshift training in cSNC was extended from 10 to 20 sessions (Experiment 5). In Experiment 6, Phase 1 training in PR for licking enhanced Phased 2 cSNC, also involving licking, and in Experiment 7 Phase 1 PR training in autoshaping enhanced Phase 2 cSNC after a 22-to-4% sucrose downshift. Whereas prior exposure to cSNC (consummatory task) increased resistance to extinction in autoshaped lever pressing, prior training in one-way avoidance, PR in autoshaping, or PR in taste conditioning (all anticipatory tasks) either had no effect or they enhanced the cSNC effect. Frustration counterconditioning developed during these tasks, but the type of transfer effect depends on task sequence.