Animal Learning & Behovior 1995. 23 (4, 383-390, Reinstatement after counterconditioning DOUGLAS C. BROOKS, BETH HALE, JAMES B, NELSON, and MARK E, BOUTON ‘University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont Reinstatement aNer countercondioning was examined in three experiments with rats, Te rel ea eee pairings in Phase 1 an then C5-food plrings in Phase 2. When unsignaled shock wes resented ater appettive conditioning fear performance tothe CS replaced food perforce ‘This Feinstatement effect depended on initial pairings of the CS and shock In Phase 1. It also depended on ro nue occuring in the test Coext. The reuls parallel previous data obtained afer ene tion, Countercor land now reinatatersent) which susest that Phase performance toa conditioned stimulus (CS) cansecover following extinction, Recovery of performance after ¢x- ‘eton Suggests that extinction does not result in unleara- reeane ietntermation acquis’ during conditioning is Ine slstroyed by a procedurein which the CS fs repeatedly Fresented without the unconditioned stimulus (US: Boo- ton, 1991, 1993), One recovery effect is spontaneous re- ‘Ber, the retura of the conditioned response (CR) that SRE hen me pacers following etintin (Brooks Gowon, 1999, Pavioy, 1927; Reseorla & Cunningham, 1978; Robbins, 1990; Thomas & Sherman, 1986). Another is the renewal effect, the return of the CR that occurs when the background context is switched following extinction iC Araher Sioden, Nilsson, & Carter, 1979; Bouton & Slice 1979; Bouton & King, 1983; Bouton & Peck, 1989, Bouton & Ricker, 1994; Bouton de Swartzentruber, 1989 Brooks & Bouton, 1994). A third example is reinstate ‘ment, in which the extinguished CR returns when the CSis Tratedafer exposures to the US alone (eg, Bouton, 1984; ‘Seaton: Bolles 1979; Bouton & King, 1983, Bouton & Peck, 1989; Rescorla & Cunningham, 1978; Rescorla & Heth, 1975; ef Baker, Steinwald, & Bovton, 1991). ‘guton (1993) has recently noted paaiels between ex- tinction and counterconditioning, another procedure in sich the CS ts asociated with different event after con- ‘ivoning with a parcular US. In counterconditoning the (CSis pared with a second qualitatively different US in the second phase For example, aversive-eppetitivetans- fer wolves paring te CS orth an aversive US (eg, shock) ie hie 1 and an eppstiive US (e-g. food or water) in Phase 2 The second phase establishes a CR (6.8, MBE Zine entry) different from that conditioned in Phase 1 itreckng) (in appetive-aversive transfer, each phase in- “Tis esearch was suppored by Grants BNS 89-08535 and [BN 92. (9184 rom the National Setense Foundation to ME Correspondence onceing th arti shouldbe sent to Mak E. Bouton, Department ‘or aycholog, University of Vermont, Buagton. VT 05405 D.C. ‘Brooks can tow be reached at Si, ichael's College, Psychology De pose Wawoshi Poe Celene VF OSS Accepted by previous editor, Vincent M,Lobondo 383 rung and extinction yield several parallel effects (spontaneous recovery, renewal “2 dges not destroy the learning acquired in Phase 2 ‘volves the alternate US and CR.) Asin extinction the in- formation acquired during Phase 1 does not appear to be destroyed by counterconditioning in Phase 2 (Bouton, 1993), Spontaneous recovery of Phase 1 performance has been demonstrated when tiie is allowed to poss following Phase 2 (Bouton & Peck, 1992). And renewal of Phase | performance has been demonstrated following a switch to the Phase 1 context after Phases | and 2 take place in dif ferent contexts (Peck & Bouton, 1990). "we are not ware of any research that has investigated reinstatement after counterconditioning. A demonstration ‘ofthis effect would further suppor the similarity between txtinetion end counterconditioning. This was the objective (of the presentexperiments, We used an aversive-appetitive {Tanafec paradigm in which a CS was pared with a shock ‘US in Phase | and then a food US in Phase 2. Experiment 1 fetablished a new method that yields representative re- sults We then used the method to ask whether exposure to Phase | shock USs would reinstate aversive conditioning, performance after Phase 2. The results from Experiments Piand 3 suggest that Phase I shock USs do reinstate Phase | jversve conditioning performance afte appetitive counter- ‘Conditioning. Reinstatement depended on CS-US pairings fn Phase 1 (Experiment 2). Italso depended on presenting the reinstating shock USS inthe context in which testing was to occur (Experiment 3:¢f Bouton, 1984; Bouton & Bolles, 1999; Boston & King, 1983; Bouton & Peck, 1989) EXPERIMENT I Inthe fest experiment, aversive-appetitivetranafor was examined using a new method. CSs and USs were super- aposed ona Baseline magazine-enry respons that was iratained by food pellets delivered on a variable time (VT) schedule. Pairings of the CS and shock in Phase 1 (Nike suppress dre beseline responce duringthe C'S Sub- the CS and food in Phase 2 should re- jon and then enbance the baseline re- Sponse during the CS (eg, DeCola & Roselini, 1990). .10). lAversive and appetitive conditioning were both demon- ‘trated with the present method. Aversive conditioning in Phase | also interfered with the acquisition of appetitive performance in Phase 2. Figure 1 presents mean elevation scores during the 9 fourtrial blocks of the appettive conditioning phase. The figure suggests that atthe start ofthe phase, Group AV sup- pressed responding to the CS compared to Group EU; Phase | CS-shock pairings had resulted in conditioned suppression of the baseline. Over the course of Phase 2, Group AV then acquired appettive performance, but did 0 less rapidly than Group NAV. By the end of the phase, however, Groups NAV and AV demonstrated comparable appetitive performance. ’A group x block ANOVA confirmed these observa- tions. There was a significant effect of group [F(2,2]) = 8.35}, There was also an effectof block [F(8,168) = 2.98), indicating an overall increase in responding during the phase, The interaction between these factors was also sig- nificant [F(16,168) = 3.60], Planned comparisons on the ‘black revealed that responding in Group AV was sup ‘pressed compared to both Groups NAV and EU {smallest F121) = 9.56), Groups NAV and EU did not differ on this block (F(1.21)< 1). Phase I aversive conditioning clearly produced conditioned suppression in Group AY. (On Blocks 4-6. Group NAV demonstrated appetitive conditioning performance: responding in this group was greater than that in Group EU [smallest F(1,21) = 4.48). However, Group AV did no differ from Group EU on these blocks (largest F(I,21) = 2.38} indicating that Group AV did not yet demonstrate appettive conditioning. On the 5 8 i 3 FourTret Blocks during the 9 fourdriat Blocks for Groups AN, NAV. and EU Figure 1, Mean elevatlon sor or Phaze 2 appetive condionl In Experiment 385 final two blocks, however, both Group AV and Group NAV demonstrated sppetitive conditioning; responding was {greater in each group than in Group EU (smallest FU1,21) = 6.26). Groups AV and NAV did not differ on either block (F5(1,21) <1) The results suggest that both aversive and appetitive conditioning performance were demonstrated by using the present procedure. They are consistent with data from pre- fous studies in suggesting that aversive conditioning interferes proactively with the acquisition of appetitive con ditioning performance (e.g., Bouton & Peck, 1992; Bro- image & Scavio, 1978; Kaye et al., 1987; Peck & Bouton, 1990; Scavio, 1974), The present method is therefore suit- abie for investigating reinstatement in aversive-appertive transfer. EXPERIMENT 2 In Experian 2, we began to investigate che reinstate- iment of Phase 1 avetsive-conditioning performance fol- lowing appetitive counterconditioning. The design is pre- sentedin Table I. In Phase 1, Groups R reinstatement) and [NR (ao reinstatement) received CS-shock paicings; in Phase 2, they roveived CS-food pairings. In exch phase, Group EU received the CS and US in an explicitly un- paired manner which again should not yield conditioning. Following Phase 2, Groups R and EU received exposure toPhase I shock USs while Group NR received no shocks. “The groups were then tested for responding tothe CS. If Phase I shock USs were o reinstate aversive conditioning performance following appettive conditioning, respond ing onthe test should be resuppressed in Group R. Since reinstatement after extinction depends on an original C3-shock association (e-2, Bouton & Bolles, 1979), we expected litle change in performance in Group EU. Group NR did not eceive exposure to Phase 1 USs and should continue to demonstrate appetitive conditioning. Method Subjects ‘The subjects were 24 male and 24 female Wistar ats bred atthe University of Vermont. They were approximately 100-120 days old atthe start ofthe experiment. The experiment was ran in two repli ‘ations. Rate ia the first replication (n = 24) were experimentally inaive als inthe second repliation (1 = 24) had been run in a pre ious study ina separate apparatus that involved exposure to food pellets and to 0 CS that difeed from the one used here, Rats ffom {he previous experimental conditions were orthogonally assigned to iroups inthe present experiment. The housing and muiotenance onditions were the same a in Expeciment Apparatus 2351) % { Lom, war made of lear acrylic plate, and was housed ‘na soundattenuation chamber The font wall and one side ‘Mere transparent: he exteriors ofthe other walls wee covered black construction paper The rs entered the box through the. ing. Onthe right wal af each box was a sinless tel recessed food ‘up positional om above the Moor, The food cup was accessed through 6-cm-squire opening. Inactive apeaut levers were located386 BROOKS, HALE, NELSON, AND BOUTON atthe right ofthe back wal, Sem above the oe Inthe First ot of| boxes the floor consisted of 3-mm bars mourted parallel tthe side wall and aggered so thatthe odd-numbered bars were mounted 6 mm above the even-numbered bare. OUd-rumbered bars were spaced I Gem apa: as were the even ones) The tide and Back walls had Trem horizontal white stipes spaced 1 cm apart. dish con taining 10 ml of 4% McCormick eoconat extract solution (Me- Corie, Hunt Valley, MD}, which provided a distnetive oor, was Toeated on the floor of the sound-atenvation chamber nea the food cup. In the second set of boxes, the floor consisted of 3-mm bars (paced 18 em apart) mounted diagonally tothe chamber wall; the rear wall was black. A dish conaining 10 mi of 2% MeCormick anise exact solution provided ie distinctive odor nthe first replication, the CS was the tone used in Experiment | In the second replication, it was the 30-sc presentation of ‘orange jeveled light (General Electric Mode! 313 bulb) hat {wotimes pr second. The light was lem in ameter, protraed Sn into the boa, and was mounted & em above and 4 em to the right of the food cup. The USs were the same as in Experiment 1 Procedure “The experiment was ran on consecutive dovs with each rat recev- ing one seston each dy in te sume box throughout he experiment ‘Groups were equally represented inthe wo replications, which sed Sdenteal procedures except where noted. retraining. Each at received two SO-min baseline waning ses- sons; 25 pellets were delivered onthe VT 120-tc schedule in each session. Rusinthe second replication then received evo noneinforced preenposutes to the CS in an extra 12-min session conducted the ‘ext day Rats inthe fis replication began the aversive condition- ing phase on the day fllowing the conclusion of baseline irining. ‘Aversive conditioning. During the nex ive sessions, Groupe R and NR (ns = 16) received aversive conditioning. Each S0-minses- sion imlved thee presentations of the CS terminating with he Shock US, Te firs CS occurred at Migue 6 subsequent CSS 0c- curred with arpean FTTof 17 min anda range of 11-21 min. Group EU (r= 16) received he same numberof CSs and shock USs presented Inanexplichly unpaired manner; the minimum CS-US interval was (6 min. CS timing was the some forall groups. “Appetitive conditioning. During the next phase, Groups Rand Ni Feceivedsppettive conditioning. Each sxsion involved eight -resenations of the CS terminating with he thee-pllt food US. ‘The first session lasted 60 min, In his session, the frst CS was de- luyed to promote baseline responding after shock presentations in Phase I; w occurred in Minute 15. Subsequent CSs occurred with a mean T71 of min and a range of 4-8 min. The remaining seasons (ofthis phase were SO in fog, Firs ial onset varied between Mi ties Sand 9: Tis were the same as inthe fist session. Group EU re- ‘eived the same number of CSs and food USé presened in an ex- plictly unpaired manner, tbe minimum CS-US interval was 4 min. CS sining was he sume for all groups ‘Inthe first replication, there were six apptitve conditioning ses. ‘sions; the baseline schedule was VI 120 ee throughout the exper reat Inthe second replication, there were ine sessions To minimize ‘an increase in baseline responding tat developed over sessions the baseline schedule was increased from VT 120 sccm Seesions I and 20 VT 150 se in Sessions 3-6 and VT 180 te in Sessions 7-9 ‘Relastatement treatment. In the nex session, Groups Rand EU received exposure to shock USs. In the frst replication ix shocks ‘were deliveredin SO min withthe fre shock gecurring at Mint subsequent shocks occurred wih a mean ITI of6 min Inthe second replication, cight shocks were delivered in 6D ena, wihthe frst shock ‘occurring at Minute 11; the mean FT es also 6 min, Group NR rs= ceived no shocks in an otherwise identical session, “Test. The final session was the eunsttement test. Alk groupe .13); for simplicity, this factor \was therefore excluded ffom the analyses. There were no pre-CS differences among the groups (all ps >-10). Aver- sive and appetitive conditioning performance were again demonstrated. Most importantly, after appetitive condi- tioning in Phase 2, exposure to Phase | shock USs reinstated aversive conditioning performance. Appetitive Phase Figure 2 presents mean elevation scores on the first (left)and final (ight) rwo-tial block of the appettive con- tioning phase for Groups Rand NR combined (rats that always had the CS and US paired) and for Group EU (We focused on the first and final trial blocks because each replication involved a different number of Phase 2 ses- sions) The figure suggests that rat in the paired condition demonstrated aversive conditioning performance (sup pressed responding) during the first block and appetitive conditioning performance (enhanced responding) during the final block. The impression was confirmed by statis: tical analysis. A condition (paired vs. unpaired) x block ANOVA revealed a significant effect of block [FU46) 19.05], and a condition X block interaction [FUi.46) 13.82], The effect of condition was not reliable (F< 1). On the fist block there was a difference between conditions {F(.46) = 33.73), indicating suppressed responding in the paired condition. On the final block, there was again a difference (FU46) = 10.89}, now indicating enhanced responding inthe paired condition. Mean elevation scores {for Group EU during each block did not difer from a hy- pothetical population mean of zero {15(15) < 1.13} ELEVATION SCORE Mean elevation scores om the fest (leh) and final (ight) o-iradbiuek of Phase 7 appetite conditioning im Ex: beriment 2 for rate that received ine CS and US paired in each phase und for rats tha alinays received the CS and US explictts tinpaived (Group FL).REINSTATEMENT AFTER COUNTERCONDITIONING Test Figure 3 presents mean elevation scores during the final four-trial block of appetitive conditioning (pre let), and the four-trial Block of the reinstatement teat (right) for Groups R, NR, and EU, Performance onthe testis of great- est interest. Te figure suggests that responding in Group R ‘was resuppressed as compared with that of Group EU, While responding in Group NR remained enhanced, These Impressions were confirmed by a group * block ANOVA fon these data, which revealed an effect of group [F(243) = 4.38] and a significant group X block inter- action (F(2,45) = 5.67). On the test, Group NR responded more than Group EU [F(1,45) = 4.37) indicating contin- ed appetitive conditioning performance. Group R fe- sponded reliably less than Group NR [F(,45) = 19.42). Furthermore, Group R's performance was suppressed a compared with that of Group EU (FU45) = 5.37], indi- cating reinstatement of aversive conditioning perfor- tance. Also, Group R's mean on the test was significantly ‘elow a hypothetical population mean of zero [¢(15) = 777232}, suggesting that baseline responding was sup- pressed in this group, as it was after Phase 1 “The results of the reinstatement test suggest thet per- formance changes substantially when Phase I USs are pre- sented noncontingentlyaflercounterconaitioning. Specif- jeally, shock exposure reinstated fear performance, The effect of shock clearly depended on initial aversive condi- tioning: Even though Groups R and EU both received shock exposure, only Group R showed reinstatement (cf. Bouton & Bolles, 1979), Moreover, itis worth noting that shock exposure did not merely reduce appettive perfor- mance in Group R relative to Group NR; it actually rein- stated fear performance, as indicated by greater suppres- ‘sion in Group R than in Group EU. This result is especially interesting given the lange number of Phase 2 condition- ing trials involved here (48-72). Extensive experience i 5 Be ee ae ms Figure 3. Mean elevation block of Phase? appetiive con {tial block ofthe eiastatemen EU tn Experiment 2. Groups paired in each phase. Groups Phase 1 shock USs: Group NR d (right fer Groups R.NR and VANR received the CS and US ind EU received exposure (0 387 CS's sensitivity to reinstatement. EXPERIMENT 3 in the third experiment, we asked whether the statement effect observed in Experiment 2 depended on ‘exposure to Phase 1 shock USs in the test context. After extinction, reinstatement occurs in the apparatus in which expostie to Phase I USs recently occurred; the same US exposures in an irelevant context produce litle or no re- instatement (Bouton, 1984; Bouton & Bolles, 1979; Bou- ton & King, 1983; Bouton & Peck, 1989; see also Baker ‘etal. 1991) In the present experiment, we sought to eval- Gate whether reinstatement after eounterconditioning was similarly dependent on the context of shock exposure. "Table | presents the experimental design. Two groups received aversive conditioning, appetitive conditioning, and testing in one context (Context A). The groups differed only with respect 10 the context i which they were ex: posed to reinstating shocks after appetitive conditioning. ‘One group (Group Same) received shocks in the same ‘context in which testing was to take place (Context A); the ‘ther group (Group Diff) received the shocks in a differ- ent conteat (Context D) If reinstatement of Phase } per- formance depends on US exposures in the test context, only Group Same should demonstrate reinstatement, Method Subject and Apparatus “The subjects were 32 experimentally naive female Wistar rts ob- tained from Charles River Laboratories, St Constant, Quebet. They ‘wore approximately 90 days old at the start ofthe experiment, The housing and maintenance conditions were the same asin the previ= ‘us experiment. “Theappeiatue was the acts of bones used in Experiment 1, which ow provided diferent contexts (ully counterbalanced) The CS snes the tone, USe were the same as in the previous experiments, Procedure "The experiment wat ron on consecutive days, with each rt rece: Ing onc aes cal day. Eacept forthe pretaining receive hy ‘ai andthe reinstatement entment given fo Group Dif, each rat was fin consistently in one box (Context A) throughout the experiment. ‘Pretraing. All rats firs received 20 min of exposure tothe ‘bores in which subsequent sessions were Each rat re+ ‘ceived one exporure session in Context A and another in Context ‘he itrsessioniteval wes approximately 120 min. The food cus swore ited with four pellets a the star ofthese sessions. Ech rt tras then given 25-min session in each context in which it was Arained io eat food pellet upon their delivery to the food cup the in- {ereason interval war approximately 150 min, Atthe sar of these fcasions, food cups were buted with two pellets; the average num Corer Use delivered in each eerion wns (0) Allrate were then run ih four consecutive daily baseline raining sesions using the proce Goce fom Experiment 2. The fest and tir sessions were conducted in Context Ath second and fourth were conducted in Comest B. “There was no iil preexposure tthe CS. "aversive conditioning. In each ofthe next three sesions, each sai wcecived eerove conditioning Each S0smin sesion involved Uhros pairings ofthe CS and the shock US. The procedure as the {ame fs that for Groupe R and NRC in Experiment 2. At the coneho=388 BROOKS, HALE, NELSON, AND BOUTON, sion ofthis phase, 2 ras failed to demonsrae aversive conditioning, ‘heir data were not included in tatsical analyses. ‘Appettive conditioning, In each ofthe next four secon. al sais eceived ppetive condoning. Esch session was 0 min in du ration and involved eight pairings of he CS and the food US. The procedure foreach session was the same a n Experiment except ‘hat the baseline schedule wes VT 180 sec inthe first two sessions and VT 210 seein he remaining two, ‘Reinstatement treatment Following the end of petitive con- ioming, the rats were assigned to two groups of 13 that were matched on performance during Phase 2. Group Same then received ‘session in which the shock US was presented eight timesin tbe con- text that had been used throughout traning (Context A). Group Dif received the same US exposure treatment in a different box (Coa- ‘ext B), that i box. ffom the alteraate set of Vicks or vneg> scenled boxes (counterbalanced) For each group the bassin shed be was VF 150 se, ‘Tet. Inthe inal sesion, ll animals were runinther origin] bones (Context A), Each group now received four sonreinforesd CSs in ‘50min. The fist CS oecurred at Minute 12;the IT} vas 12 in. The baseline schedule was VT 150 sec. Ite reinstatement of fear pers formance depends on exposure o Phe | shock USs inthe es con text there should be a resuppresson of responding on the test Group Same but not in Group DIR. Results and Discussion ‘There were no pre-CS differences betwesn the groups at any point in the experiment (all ps >.08). Exposure to Phase 1 USsin the test context reinstated Phase I aversive conditioning performance in Group Same. Exposure 10 Phase 1 USs ina content different from the tet context had no effect on performance in Group Dif Appetitive Phase ‘At left in Figure 4 are the mean elevation scores during the 16 two-trial blocks of the appetitive conditioning ‘hace for Groups Same and Diff. This portion ofthe fige lure suggests that aversive performance at the start of Phase 2 changed to appetitive performance by the end of the phase. As in Experiment 2, we evaluated performance during the first and final two-rial block of the appetitive conditioning phase. A group X block ANOVA revealed a significant block effect [F(1,28) = 43.71] but no group effector interaction (Fs< 1). Both groups showed perfor- ‘mance on the first block that was less than a hypothetical population mean of zero [s(14) > 7.99) and performance ‘onthe final block that was greater than this value [s(14) > 3.79]. The unpaired control group in the previous experi- ‘ment never deviated from a hypothetical population mean of zero; thus, the results for both groups suggest that aver- sive performance (< 0) was evident at the start of Phase 2 and that it had changed to appetitive performance (> 0) by the end of the phase, Test ‘The data of greatest interest are from the reinstatement lest, Atright in Figure 4 are the mean elevation scores dur- ing the two two-trial blocks ofthe test, The figure suggests that aversive performance was reinstated in Group Same but not in Group Diff. A group x block (last Phase 2 vs. first test) ANOVA and planned comparisons confirmed these impressions. There was a significant group effect a 8 i: re locke ‘the 16 cwoctrial blocks sondltioning (et) andthe twe-trial blocks ‘of the reinstatement test (eight) for Groups Same and Diff in Ex. Periment 3. Group Same received exporure to Phase I shock USs {nthe test context (Context Af: Group Diff received the same ‘shocks na afferent context (Contest B). (F(1.28) = 11.56}, indicating less responding in Group Same than in Group Diff. There was no block effect [FU1,28) = 1.57]. However, he group X block interaction was sig- nificant {F(.28) = 13.46]. Group Same’s responding de- ereased from the end of Phase 2 to the test [F(1.28) = 12.12}; Group Diffs performance did not change signifi- cantly (F(1.28)<2.92, p = .10}. On the test, Group Same was more suppressed than Group Diff (F(1,28) = 25.53} Group Same's performance was also significantly below 2 hypothetical population mean of zero {¢(14) = —3.57). ‘suggesting the reinstatement of aversive conditioning per- formance. In contrast, Group Diffs mean on the test was significantly above a hypothetical population mean of zero [1(14) = 8.64}, suggesting continued appetitive performance, ‘The results of the reinstatement test suggest that expo- sure to Phase 1 shock USs in the test context reinstated aversive conditioning performance while shocks pre- sented in different context did not. Group Same’s results support those from Experiment 2 in suggesting that rein statement of aversive performance can occur following ‘counterconditioning with a food US. More importantly. the present results are consistent with previous ones from cexinction e.g, Bouton, 1984; Bouton & Bolles, 1979; Bou- ton & King. 1983; Bouton & Peck. 1989: see also Raker etal., 1991) in suggesting that reinstatement after coun- terconditioning is especially likely when exposure to Phase I shock USs occurs in the test context, GENERAL DISCUSSION The present results can be summarized as follows. In Experiment I. as in previous counterconditioning studies (eg. Bouton & Peck, 1992: Peck & Bouton, 1990), Phase 1 conditioning interfered with the acquisition of perfor-REINSTATEMENT AFTER COUNTERCONDITIONING ‘mance in Phase 2. The results of Experiment | therefore ‘Suggest continuity between results obtained with the pres- nt method and methods described previously inthe iter. ature. More importantly, the results of Experiments 2 and ‘suggest that exposure to Phase 1 shock USs can reinstate ear performance after aversive-appetitive transfer. Rein- statement depended on initial aversive conditioning. In addition, exposure to shock USs did not merely reduce Phase 2 appettive performance, it reinstated PRase 1 fear performance. Finally, reinstatement was most apparent {hen US exposures occurred inthe context that was used subsequently during testing (Experiment 3). “The present results parallel reinstatement results previ- ously observed after extinction (¢.g., Baker etal, 1991, Bouton, 1984; Bouton & Bolles, 1979; Bouton & King, 1983; Bouton & Peck, 1989; Rescorla & Cunningham, 1978; Rescorla & Heth, 1975). In fact, three importantre- sponse-recovery effects observed after extinction have ow been demonsiraicd after countereonditioning. In re- instatement, exposure tothe Phase 1 US inthe test context reinstates Phase | performance (and reduces Phase 2 per- formance); in renewal, a return to the Phase 1 context renews Phase | performance (and reduces Phase 2 per- formance; Peek de Bouton, 1990); and in spontaneous re- covery. the passage of time after Phase 2 causes recovery of Phase 1 performance (and reduces Phase 2 perfor- mance; Bouton & Peck, 1992). Each effect illustrates an important similarity between extinction and countercon- ditioning: Presenting the CS alone or pairing it wih asec- ‘ond US does not destroy the learning acquired in Phase I Inaddition, performance after either treatment is affected ‘by manipulations of context or time. ‘Amemory-retrieval view can integrate the range of find- ings (Bouton, 1991, 1993). CS-shock pairings in Phase 1 ‘may result in the storage of a memory representation in- ‘olving the CS (e-g.,an excitatory CS-shock association). Extinction in Phase 2 does not destroy the memory corre- sponding to Phase 1; instead, presenting the CS without shock results in the storage ofa second, conflicting mem- ‘ory involving the CS (e.g. CS-no-shock, or inhibitory CS-shock, association; Konorski, 1967; Pearce, 1987; Pearce & Hall, 1980; Wagner, 1981). Memories corre- sponding to each phase are thus stored and avaiable fol- owing extinction (eg., Bouton, 1993). Performance after Phase 2 therefore hinges on which memory is retrieved. ‘The memories corresponding to each phase depend dif- ferentialy on context for retrieval Inextinction, the Phase 2 (CS-no-shock, or shock-inhibition) memory is more de- pendent on context for retrieval than the Phase 1 (CS-shock) Tremory. AS a consequence, a ewvitch out of the Phase 2 context may reduce retrieval ofthe CS-no-shock memory more than retrieval of CS-shock (Bouton, 1993). “This account views counterconditioning as the same as ‘extinction, except, of course, that the CS is associated ‘ith a different US (e.g. Bouton, 1993; Bouton &: Peck, 1992), An excitatory CS-shock association is stored dut- ing Phase 1, CS-food pairings in Phase 2 promote the Storage of two new associations involving the CS. One is ‘4 CS-no-shock (an inhibitory CS-shock) association, just 389 as in extinction, The other isa second, excitatory associa tion involving the new US (e.g.. CS-food). As in extine- tion, the memories corresponding to cach phase are stored and available following Phase 2, und menvary retrieval ‘again depends differentially on context. A switch out of the Phase 2 context may reduce retrieval of the Phase 2 (CS-no-shock memory more than the Phase 1 CS-shoek memory. Relatively stronger retrieval of CS-shock may then interfere with etvieval ofthe Phase 2 CS—food mem- cory (see Bouton, 1993; Bouton & Peck, 1992) "This view can account for spontaneous recovery re- newal, and reinstatement by emphasizing the effects of context on retrieval of different memories. Spontaneous covery results when time passes after Phase 2: since the passage of time is viewed asa gradually changing context Testing takes place in a temporal context different from that of Phase 2. Renewal results when the Phase 2 appa: ratus cues are replaced by Phase 1 cues or by different ‘Cues. Reinstatement results because US exposure condi tions excitation to the eontext. Contextual excitation may ‘make the test context more similar to the context assoc! ‘ated with Phase 1 (Bouton, 1993). Itmay also simply reduce the simitarty between the testing and Phase 2 contexts, ‘which in tselfean cause a renewal effet (Bouton & Ricker, 1994). (Previous research argues against the idea that con- textual excitation merely summates with excitation to the CS; see Bouton, 1984; Bouton & King, 1986; Bouton, Rosengard, Achenbach, Peck, & Brooks, 1993). A mem- ory retrieval view (Bouton, 1991, 1993) can integrate sev- eral response-recovery effects that occur ufter both ex- tinction and counterconditioning. REFERENCES ances. T. S18 P-O.,Ntsson, LG. & CARTER, N.(1979) Role “of enrocepive background coniex is imste-averion condoning {nd etncion, Animal Learning & Behavior 717-22 Benth, A. Gy STENWALD,H, & BOUTON, M. E. (1991), Context ‘ondioning and restatement of extinguished insrumental spond tng Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2B, 19-218 ‘Boutox M, E. (1980), Difleenial cont! by contest inthe inflation “ind reinwaementperaaigms. Journal of Experdmenal Pycholy: ‘Animal Behavior Proceses. 10. 56-74. ‘Bovtox. ME (1991) Content and reel in extinction an in other ‘rumples of interference fo simple associative learning. Yo L. De- howsks & C.F Flabery (Eds Current opis in animal learning Sra emotion and cognition (pp. 25°33). Millsale, NP: Entaum. overs HCE (108) Comet, te. and memory revival in the it Tec ung of Pn leg, Pog! let ma, Bouren, M, E» & BOLLES, R.C. (1979). Role of conditioned contex “ual simul in reinsaiement of extinguishes fear, Jourel of Expet- tment! Psychology: daimel Behavior Processes, 8, 68°37. ‘Bouton. ME. & Kine, D. A. (1983), Contertalconrl of the ex- “incon of sodtoned fear ets forthe ssocaive value of Bec ‘ek dhwral of perme Pryhoy Animal Beker Pr ees, 9,28 BovrToN M.E.. dc Kino: D. A. (1986). Effect of context on performance “To ondioned simul with eine storie of enforcement and 20m ‘Seacoast ral of periment Pkg Ail Bea for Procenes. 12-13 ‘Bouton, ME. & Beck, C.A. (1989). Contest efets on conditioning. ‘intion reinuatement in an appetive conditioning prepart- lon Ana auing & Behan, 1188-138, Boctos: ME. & Prcx.C.A, (1992). Spontaneous rsovery in cr3s-390 BROOKS, HALE, NELSON, AND BOUTON ‘motivational ranfe (couneronditioning). Animal Learning & Be havior 20,313.21, Bouton, ME, & RICKER, S. . (199). Renewal of extinguished re “puoi asad niet And Bewng Behave 23,3 Bm BOUTON, M. E, ROLENGARD, C, ACHENAACH, G, PEEK, C. An & Baooxs,D.C_(1993). Effects ofcontextual conditioning and uncon- ional simulus presentation on performance in apetiive cond tioning: Quorsery Journal of ExperimenalPeyhology, 4B, 63-95. Bouron, M. E. & Swanr2snrnunex,D. (1989), Slow rescauisiton Tolling exincon: Context, encoding, and reieval mechanisms urna of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 353 BRowAce, BK. & Scavio-M.).J8(199), Effects of anaversive CS+ ‘nd C8~ under deprivation upon suceesive classical appetitve and svenve conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior. 6, 57-5, [Brows D.C. & BOUTON, ME (1093) Areva ce fr extinction ‘enuates spontaneous recovery. Journal of Experimental Psycho. (9): Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 77-89. BxooKs, D.C. & BouToN, ME. (1994). retiva cue for entincton| ‘aenates response recovery (renewal aus by are tothe com ‘Snoring conten June! of Experimental Prycholegy Animal Be- Iai Press 20, 366379. owt, D.'G (1987) Sttsicel methods for pychology (2nd ed) ‘Boton: PWS.Kent aye H, PRESTON. GC. $2480, L,Davity. H. & MaceisTost NJ (1987). Content specificity of conditioning and latent inhibin: Ev ‘ence fora diasoclation of ate inhibin and associative iterer- ence. Quarterly urna of Experiment] Prolog. 398. 127-145, Kowoni J. (1967) nteratveaty of the bra, Chleago: Univer- ‘iy of Chicago Press PasLon.LP.(927) Condoned meres: An investigation of he pls ological activin ofthe cereve cores (GV. Antep. Ed. and Trans.) Condon: Onford Univesity Press. eance,1. M.(1987) A adel for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian nie, PasehotigcalResiws 94, 6173. Peance, J Me & Halt, G. (1980) A model for Pavlovian laring: ‘erations inthe effectiveness of condoned bu ot of encondtoned simul, Pochalogica! Review, 87, $3258, Pex, CA, &e BOUTON, M. E (1990) Context and performance in ‘nershe-to-appeive and appettveso-nersive transfer. Learning & Mortvorion 311-21 encom, R.A, & CUNNINGHAM, CL (1978). Recovery of he US ‘epresenition overtime during extinction, Learning & Mexbeton,8, 573381 RESCORLA,R. A, & HET C.D. (1975) Reinsiaement of feartoan ex- Lingushed conditioned stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psichl ‘gy: Animal Behavior Proceses, 1, 38.56. ‘Robtins (1990). Mechanms uncerying sportaneous recovery 19 ‘autshaping. Jounal of Experimental Prochologs: Animal Bestor Processes, 16, 235-29. Scavio, MJ. (1974), Classiea-laseal wanster: Effects of prior aver- five condoning upon appetive conditioning in rabbis. Journal of Comparative & Piyiclogical Psychology, B6, 107-115. Tom, De Shas, L (1986). An ansesoment of the role of| Tandliag cues insportaneous recovery” afer extinction. Journal of ‘he Experimenial Anas of Behavior, 6, 308314 \WaGveK A-R.(1981), SOP: A model ofmtomatie memory procesing {waniral bebavor. nN E-Spear & RR. Miler (Eds). formation processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (p. 5:47). Hillsdale Riverton, (Manuscript ceived famary 24,1994; revision aeepied for pubiation Noverber 3.1994)