Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39260876›Full record

ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2024

Safety signals reinforce instrumental avoidance in humans.

Courteney T L Fisher, Gonzalo P Urcelay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Courteney T L FisherSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.
Gonzalo P UrcelaySchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom gonzalo.urcelay@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4717-0181

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safety signals reinforce instrumental avoidance behavior in nonhuman animals. However, there are no conclusive demonstrations of this phenomenon in humans. Using human participants in an avoidance task, Experiments 1-3 and 5 were conducted online to assess the reinforcing properties of safety signals, and Experiment 4 was conducted in the laboratory. Participants were trained with CSs+ and CSs-, and they could avoid an aversive outcome during presentations of the CSs+ by pressing their space bar at a specific time. If successful, the aversive outcome was not presented but instead a safety signal was. Participants were then tested-whilst on extinction-with two new ambiguous test CSs. If participants made an avoidance response, one of the test CSs produced the trained safety signal and the other was a control. In Experiments 1 and 4, the control was followed by no signal. In Experiment 2, the control was followed by a signal that differed in one dimension (color) with the trained safety signal, and in Experiment 3, the control differed in two dimensions (shape and color) from the trained safety signal. Experiment 5 tested the reinforcing properties of the safety signal using a choice procedure and a new response during test. We observed that participants made more avoidance responses to the ambiguous test CSs when followed by the trained signal in Experiments 1, 3, 4, and 5 (but not in Experiment 2). Overall, these results suggest that trained safety signals can reinforce avoidance behavior in humans.

Indexed as

Avoidance LearningConditioning, OperantReinforcement, PsychologyAdolescentAdultExtinction, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39260876
PMCPMC11407691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.