4.7 Review

The neural substrates of higher-order conditioning: A review

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104687

关键词

Sensory preconditioning; Second-order conditioning; Mediated learning; Amygdala; Perirhinal cortex; Retrosplenial cortex; Hippocampus; Orbitofrontal cortex

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [FT190100697]
  2. ARC [DP190100747, APP1146999]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant [DE200100856]
  4. Australian Research Council [DE200100856, FT190100697] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the neural substrates of sensory preconditioning and second-order conditioning and discusses the similarities and differences in these conditioning protocols, as well as their contribution to our understanding of how the brain encodes and retrieves information.
Sensory preconditioned and second-order conditioned responding are each well-documented. The former occurs in subjects (typically rats) exposed to pairings of two relatively neutral stimuli, S2 and S1, and then to pairings of S1 and a motivationally significant event [an unconditioned stimulus (US)]; the latter occurs when the order of these experiences is reversed with rats being exposed to S1-US pairings and then to S2-S1 pairings. In both cases, rats respond when tested with S2 in a manner appropriate to the affective nature of the US, e.g., approach when the US is appetitive and withdrawal when it is aversive. This paper reviews the neural substrates of sensory preconditioning and second-order conditioning. It identifies commonalities and differences in the substrates of these so-called higher-order conditioning protocols and discusses these commonalities/differences in relation to what is learned. In so doing, the review highlights ways in which these types of conditioning enhance our un-derstanding of how the brain encodes and retrieves different types of information to generate appropriate behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据