The strength of an association between a cue and its outcome is influenced by both the probability of the outcome given the cue and the probability of the outcome in the absence of the cue. Once an association has been formed, extinction is the procedure for reducing responding indicative of the association by repeated presentation of the cue without the outcome. The present experiments tested whether cumulative frequency and/or cumulative duration of these events affects associative extinction in a streamed trial extinction procedure with human participants. Experiment 1 assessed the effects of parametric manipulations of the frequency and duration of either the cue by itself or cue–outcome co-absence. In Experiment 1, participants proved relatively insensitive to manipulation of the event’s duration. In contrast, judgements of the association by participants decreased when the frequency of cue-alone events was increased, even when the durations of those events were decreased so that cumulative exposure to the cue was equated. No effect of either the duration or the frequency of cue–outcome co-absence was observed. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the effect of cue-alone (i.e., extinction trial) frequency generalises across a wide range of parameters for initial acquisition achieved by cue–outcome pairings. Experiment 3 tested for an interaction between event duration during initial learning and event duration during extinction. Collectively, these results indicate that the cumulative frequency, and not the cumulative duration, of extinction trials as well as the duration of the cue–outcome co-absences between extinction trials control the effectiveness of an extinction procedure.
AllanL. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334492
2.
BakerA. G.MurphyR. A.Vallée-TourangeauF. (1996). Associative and normative models of causal induction: Reacting to versus understanding cause. In ShanksD. R.HolyoakK.MedinD. L. (Eds.), Causal learning (pp. 1–45). Academic Press.
3.
BonardiC.CheungT. H.MondragónE.TamS. K. (2016). Timing and conditioning: Theoretical issues. In MurphyR. A.HoneyR. C. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the cognitive neuroscience of learning (pp. 348–379). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118650813.ch14
4.
BoutonM. E. (2004). Context and behavioural processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, 11(5), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.78804
BoutonM. E.WoodsA. M.ToddT. P. (2014). Separation of time-based and trial-based accounts of the partial reinforcement extinction effect. Behavioural Processes, 101, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.08.006
8.
CastielloS.MillerR. R.WitnauerJ. E.AlcaideD.FungE.PitliyaR. J.MorrisseyD.MurphyR. A. (2022). Benefiting from trial spacing without the cost of prolonged training: Frequency, not duration, of trials with absent stimuli enhances perceived contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001166
9.
ChanC. K. J.HarrisJ. A. (2019). The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 45(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000190
CrumpM. J. C.HannahS. D.AllanL. G.HordL. K. (2007). Contingency judgements on the fly. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 753–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701257685
12.
DrewM. R.YangC.OhyamaT.BalsamP. D. (2004). Temporal specificity of extinction in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.30.3.163
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
14.
GallistelC. R.GibbonJ. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289–344.
15.
GolkarA.BellanderM.ÖhmanA. (2013). Temporal properties of fear extinction—Does time matter?Behavioural Neuroscience, 127(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030892
16.
GrossbergS.SchmajukN. A. (1989). Neural dynamics of adaptive timing and temporal discrimination during associative learning. Neural Networks, 2, 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(89)90026-9
17.
HallamS. C.GrahameN. J.MillerR. R. (1992). Exploring the edges of Pavlovian contingency space: An assessment of contingency theory and its various metrics. Learning and Motivation, 23, 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(92)90007-9
18.
HarrisJ. A.AndrewB. J. (2017). Time, trials, and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 43(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000125
19.
HaselgroveM.AydinA.PearceJ. M. (2004). A partial reinforcement extinction effect despite equal rates of reinforcement during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.30.3.240
20.
HaselgroveM.PearceJ. M. (2003). Facilitation of extinction by an increase or a decrease in trial duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.29.2.153
21.
KaoS.-F.WassermanE. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1363–1386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1363
22.
MiguezG.WitnauerJ. E.LabordaM. A.MillerR. R. (2014). Trial spacing during extinction: The role of context–us associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033203
23.
MoodyE. W.SunsayC.BoutonM. E. (2006). Priming and trial spacing in extinction: Effects on extinction performance, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement in appetitive conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 809–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500299045
24.
MoreyR. D.RouderJ. N.JamilT.UrbanekS.FornerK.LyA. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs (Version 0.9.12-4.2) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesFactor/
25.
MurphyR. A.BakerA. G. (2004). A role for CS-US contingency in Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30(3), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.30.3.229
26.
MurphyR. A.WitnauerJ. E.CastielloS.TsvetkovA.LiA.AlcaideD. M.MillerR. R. (2022). More frequent, shorter trials enhance acquisition in a training session. There is a free lunch!. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000910
27.
NorthA. J.StimmelD. T. (1960). Extinction of an instrumental response following a large number of reinforcements. Psychological Report, 6, 227–234.
28.
PavlovI. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (AnrepG. V., Ed. & Trans.). Oxford University Press.
29.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
30.
RescorlaR. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of the CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025984
31.
RescorlaR. A. (1971). Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 2, 113–123.
32.
RescorlaR. A. (2000). Extinction can be enhanced by a concurrent excitor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.26.3.251
33.
RescorlaR. A.DurlachP. J. (1987). The role of context in intertrial interval effects in autoshaping. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 39(1), 35–48.
34.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
35.
RosasJ. M.Callejas-AguileraJ. E. (2006). Context switch effects on acquisition and extinction in human predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.461
36.
SchadD. J.VasishthS.HohensteinS.KlieglR. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038
37.
ShanksD. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601000581
38.
ShipleyR. H. (1974). Extinction of conditioned fear in rats as a function of several parameters of CS exposure. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 87(4), 699–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036997
39.
SiegelP.WarrenR. (2013a). The effect of very brief exposure on experienced fear after in vivo exposure. Cognition & Emotion, 27(6), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.756803
40.
SiegelP.WarrenR. (2013b). Less is still more: Maintenance of the very brief exposure effect 1 year later. Emotion, 13(2), 338–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030833
41.
StoutS. C.MillerR. R. (2007). Sometimes competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychological Review, 114, 759–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.759
42.
SuttonR. S.BartoA. G. (1981). Toward a modern theory of adaptive networks: Expectation and Prediction. Psychological Review, 88(2), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.2.135
43.
TeichnerW. H. (1952). Experimental extinction as a function of the intertrial intervals during conditioning and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057151
44.
TombaughT. N. (1967). The overtraining extinction effect with a discrete-trial bar-press procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 632–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024388
45.
UrcelayG. P.WheelerD. S.MillerR. R. (2009). Spacing extinction trials alleviates renewal and spontaneous recovery. Learning & Behaviour, 37(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.60
46.
Vallée-TourangeauF.MurphyR. A.DrewS.BakerA. G. (1998). Judging the importance of constant and variable candidate causes: A test of the Power PC Theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 51(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755745
47.
WagnerA. R.BrandonS. E. (2001). A componential theory of Pavlovian conditioning. In MowrerR. R.KleinS. B. (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 23–64). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48.
WassermanE. A.DornerW. W.KaoS. F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.509
49.
WestbrookR. F.SmithF. J.CharnockD. J. (1985). The extinction of an aversion: Role of the interval between non-reinforced presentations of the averted stimulus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 37(3b), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508402099
50.
WhiteP. A. (2004). Causal judgment from contingency information: A systematic test of the pCI rule. Memory & Cognition, 32, 353–368. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195830
51.
WitnauerJ. E.MillerR. R. (2012). Associative status of the training context determines the effectiveness of compound extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026333
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
