ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2026
Comparisons of extinction, counterconditioning, and novelty-facilitated extinction within ABA vs. ABC renewal designs.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) can be weakened by presenting the CS by itself (extinction [Ext]), pairing it with an appetitive US (counterconditioning [CC]), or pairing it with a neutral stimulus (novelty-facilitated extinction [NFE]). The present research tested whether NFE is less susceptible to ABC renewal than Ext and CC. In two experiments, participants viewed streams of rapid trials. After each stream, participants rated how likely it was that the target CS would be followed by the target US (i.e., predictive learning) as well as the valence of the target CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). A stream was composed of two phases: Phase 1 established an association between the target CS and target US while Phase 2 aimed at disrupting the expression of this association through Ext, CC, or NFE. Phase 1 occurred in Context A while Phase 2 occurred in Context B. Prediction and valence ratings occurred in either Context A, B, or C. Neither Experiment 1 nor Experiment 2 found differences across interference conditions with predictive testing, regardless of test context. In Experiment 2, better controlled for context effect, CC and NFE altered the CS valence (CC more than NFE) when testing occurred in B, but the difference disappeared when testing occurred in either A or C. The present data do not support the hypothesis that NFE is less susceptible to ABC renewal than either Ext or CC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 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.