ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2024
Contextual modulation of human associative learning following novelty-facilitated extinction, counterconditioning, and conventional extinction.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2024. 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.
- Comparisons of extinction, counterconditioning, and novelty-facilitated extinction within ABA vs. ABC renewal designs.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2026Article
- On the generality of behavioral theory and abstract phenomena.Neurobiology of learning and memory · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The expression of an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can be attenuated by presenting the CS by itself (i.e., extinction, Ext). Though effective, Ext is susceptible to recovery effects such as renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement. Dunsmoor et al. (2015, 2019) have proposed that pairing the CS with a neutral outcome (novelty-facilitated Ext [NFE]) could offer better protection against recovery effects than Ext. Though NFE has been compared to Ext, it has rarely been compared to counterconditioning (CC), a similar procedure except that the CS is paired with a US having a valence opposite to the US used in initial training. We report two aversive conditioning experiments using the rapid-trial streaming procedure with human participants that compare the efficacies and susceptibilities to ABA renewal of Ext, CC, and NFE. Associative learning was assessed through expectancy learning and evaluative conditioning. CC and NFE equally decreased anticipation of the US in the presence of the CS (i.e., expectancy learning). Depending on how the CS-US association was probed, they were either as or more effective at doing so than Ext. All three interference treatments were equally susceptible to context manipulations. Only CC clearly altered the valence of the CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). Valence ratings after Ext, CC, and NFE, as well as a no-interference control condition, were all equally susceptible to context effects. Overall, the present study does not support the assertion that NFE is consistently more resistant to recovery effects than Ext. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.