ArticlePeerJ2015
Using signals associated with safety in avoidance learning: computational model of sex differences.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral outputs and overlapping circuits between conditional fear and active avoidance.Neurobiology of learning and memory · 2024Review
- The study of active avoidance: A platform for discussion.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Avoidance behavior involves learning responses that prevent upcoming aversive events; these responses typically extinguish when the aversive events stop materializing. Stimuli that signal safety from aversive events can paradoxically inhibit extinction of avoidance behavior. In animals, males and females process safety signals differently. These differences help explain why women are more likely to be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and exhibit differences in symptom presentation and course compared to men. In the current study, we extend an existing model of strain differences in avoidance behavior to simulate sex differences in rats. The model successfully replicates data showing that the omission of a signal associated with a period of safety can facilitate extinction in females, but not males, and makes novel predictions that this effect should depend on the duration of the period, the duration of the signal itself, and its occurrence within that period. Non-reinforced responses during the safe period were also found to be important in the expression of these patterns. The model also allowed us to explore underlying mechanisms for the observed sex effects, such as whether safety signals serve as occasion setters for aversive events, to determine why removing them can facilitate extinction of avoidance. The simulation results argue against this account, and instead suggest the signal may serve as a conditioned reinforcer of avoidance behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.