Effects of signaling inescapable shock on subsequent escape learning: implications for theories of coping and "learned helplessness"

The present experiments reveal that shuttle-escape performance deficits are eliminated when exteroceptive cues are paired with inescapable shock. Experiment 1 indicated that, as in instrumental control, a signal following inescapable shock eliminated later escape performance deficits. Subsequent experiments revealed that both forward and backward pairings between signals and inescapable shock attenuated performance deficits. However, the data also suggest that the impact of these temporal relations may be modulated by qualitative aspects of the cues because the effects of these relations depended upon whether an increase or decrease in illumination (Experiment 2) or a compound auditory cue (Experiment 4) was used. Preliminary evidence suggests that the ability of illumination cues to block escape learning deficits may be related to their to reduce contextual fear (Experiment 3). The implications of these data for conceptions of instrumental control and the role of fear in the etiology of effects of inescapable shock exposure are discussed.     

Feedback during exposure to inescapable shocks and subsequent shock-escape performance

In two experiments, we assessed the ability of a feedback stimulus during helplessness training to reduce the performance deficits common to inescapable shock. In each experiment, four groups of rats were exposed to either escapable shock (E), inescapable shock with a feedback stimulus following shock termination (Y-FS), inescapable shock with no feedback stimulus (Y-NFS), or no shock (N). The feedback stimulus eliminated the interference effects of inescapable shock when tested with an FR-3 lever press escape task (Experiment 1) or on an FR-1 task with a 3-s delay between the response and shock termination (Experiment 2). These results suggest that stress-induced biochemical changes may mediate the interference effects seen in inescapably shocked rats.     

The role of norepinephrine and acetylcholine in mediating escape deficits produced by inescapable shocks

This study examined the role of neurochemical changes produced by inescapable shock, specifically the depletion of norepinephrine (NE) and enhancement of acetylcholine (ACh), in mediating subsequent inescapable shock-induced deficits in escape acquisition in rats. Enhancement of these neurochemical changes by injections of the NE synthesis inhibitor, FLA-63 (10 mg/kg), or the anticholinesterase, eserine sulphate (3 X 0.5 mg/kg), during the inescapable shock enhanced the subsequent escape deficits observed 3 days later. In contrast, these drugs had no effect on the subsequent escape behavior of rats that were not exposed to inescapable shock. Since these effects could not be attributed to carry-over or state-dependent effects of the drugs, these data suggest that the magnitude of the escape deficit produced by prior inescapable shock is dependent on the magnitude of the initial inescapable shock-induced changes in NE and ACh.     

Escape performance after inescapable shock in selectively bred lines of mice: response maintenance and catecholamine activity.

The effects of inescapable shock on subsequent escape performance and shock-elicited activity were examined in six lines of mice selectively bred for differences in general locomotor activity. The line differences in locomotor activity were found to be unrelated to the differences observed on shock-elicited activity. However, escape performance following exposure to inescapable shock was predictable from the levels of shock-elicited activity. Those lines that displayed the greatest decline in motor activity during shock likewise displayed the most pronounced escape deficits. The line differences in escape performance induced by inescapable shock could be mimicked by treatment with a tyrosine hydroxylase inhibitor, alpha-methyl-p-tyrosine. As predicted, the lines that displayed the least interference after tyrosine hydroxylase inhibition exhibited the smallest reduction in levels of catecholamines. The effects on escape performance following inescapable shock are interpreted in terms of the role of response maintenance deficits produced by catecholamine depletion.     

The effects of escape conditioning and shock intensity on responding during inescapable shock

Eight albino rats, conditioned to press a lever to escape shock, continued to lever press during short inescapable shocks presented subsequently. The rate of this behavior was found to be higher for higher shock intensities regardless of the order in which shock values were presented. Relative to the immediately preceding escape rate, responding during inescapable shock was higher following conditioning at higher fixed-ratio escape requirements. Four subjects not conditioned to escape shock pressed the lever very infrequently during inescapable shock and showed little change with changes in shock intensity. The escape conditioning effects suggest that responding during inescapable shock is superstitious escape behavior. The effects of shock intensity on this behavior appear to be similar to reported effects of shock intensity on escape behavior.     

Shock signals and the development of stress-induced analgesia

We report five experiments in which we investigated the effects of "feedback signals" on the pattern of hypoalgesia produced by inescapable shocks. A 5-s lights-out stimulus coincident with shock termination had no effect on the naltrexone-insensitive (nonopioid) hypoalgesia, which occurred after 10 inescapable shocks, but completely blocked the naltrexone-sensitive (opioid) hypoalgesia, which followed 100 inescapable shocks. The stimulus prevented the development of the opioid hypoalgesia rather than merely masking its measurement. This effect did not depend on the use of lights-out as the stimulus but did depend on the temporal relation between the stimulus and shock. Stimuli immediately preceding or simultaneous with shock had no effect. Surprisingly, stimuli randomly related to shock also blocked the opioid hypoalgesia. Simultaneous measurement of both hypoalgesia and fear conditioned to contextual cues revealed that the level of fear did not predict the blockade of hypoalgesia. Different backward groups received different temporal gaps between shock termination and the signal. An interval between 2.5 s and 7.5 s eliminated the effect of the signal on fear, but 12.5-17.5 s were required to eliminate the effect of the signal on hypoalgesia. The opioid hypoalgesia blocking power of the random stimulus was entirely attributable to those stimuli occurring within 15 s of the termination of the preceding shock. The implications of these results for the explanation of stimulus feedback effects and for stress-induced analgesia are discussed.     

Catecholamine depletion in mice upon reexposure to stress: mediation of the escape deficits produced by inescapable shock

Immediately following exposure to 60 inescapable shocks, Swiss-Webster mice had significantly reduced hypothalamic norepinephrine (NE). Within 24 hr NE levels returned to control values. Reexposure to as few as 10 shocks 24 hr after initial stress exposure resulted in a significant decline of hypothalamic NE. Moreover, at this interval after inescapable shock, escape performance was severely disrupted, with a large proportion of mice exhibiting numerous failures to escape shock. Increasing brain dopamine (DA) and NE by L-dopa treatment prior to inescapable shock prevented the escape deficits. Conversely, pairing five inescapable shocks with NE depletion by FLA-63, or both DA and NE depletion by alpha-methyl-p-tyrosine, disrupted escape performance 24 hr later. Residual drug effects, state dependence, or sustained amine turnover could not account for the behavioral changes observed. Data are discussed in terms of catecholamine mediation of escape performance through variations in response maintenance abilities. Furthermore, it is suggested that the long-term effects of inescapable shock may be due to sensitization effects or conditioned amine depletion.     

The time course of learned helplessness, inactivity, and nociceptive deficits in rats

Four experiments are reported which explore the nature of the effects of inescapable shock on subsequent shuttlebox escape learning. The first experiment demonstrated that shuttle escape deficits dissipate within 48 hr after treatment with inescapable shock. Experiment 2 showed that exposure to inescapable shock suppressed unlearned activity in the shuttlebox and that this activity deficit recovered within 48 hr. Experiment 2A demonstrated that this shuttlebox crossing decrement was at least partly attributable to the inescapability of the shocks. These results suggested that activity factors might partly mediate the shuttle escape learning deficit reported in Experiment 1. Experiment 3 explored the possibility that activity and shuttle escape learning deficits are subserved by the effects of inescapable shock on pain sensitivity. The results supported this notion. It was found that rats were less sensitive to painful stimulation 24 hr after inescapable shock and that this analgesic tendency also dissipated within 48 hr after pretreatment. The implications of these results were discussed.     

Reconsideration of the role of competing responses in demonstrations of the interference effect (learned helplessness)

In Experiment 1a, rats trained to escape shock by performing a 2-s inactive response were less impaired on a subsequent 2-way shuttle response than their yoked counterparts that received inescapable shock. In contrast, in Experiment 1b, rats trained to escape shock by performing a longer duration inactive response were more impaired on the subsequent escape task than their inescapably shocked counterparts. In Experiment 2, the results of Experiments 1a and 1b were replicated, and the inactive responses performed during pretreatment by both the escapable and inescapable shock groups were assessed and correlated with test stage 2-way shuttle escape performance. These activity data indicate that inactivity during pretreatment shock in both escapable and inescapable shock groups was a highly reliable predictor of subsequent 2-way shuttle performance, irrespective of the pretreatment shock contingency to which these Ss were exposed.     

Sign-tracking in aversive conditioning

Two experiments were conducted to determine if rats tend to avoid contact with a stimulus that signals the occurrence of shock and contact a stimulus that signals the nonoccurrence of shock. The conditioned stimulus was a 60-sec platform presentation, and the unconditioned stimulus was a 2-sec inescapable shock. In each experiment, the emphasis was on two types of Pavlovian pairings: forward pairing in which each platform presentation was followed by shock, and backward pairing in which each platform presentation was preceded by shock and followed by a lengthy shock-free interval. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison with Random and CS-only procedures, the backward procedure produced a significant increase in approach and contact with the platform, but the forward procedure failed to produce a significant decrease in contact with the platform. Experiment 2, in which all groups were roughly equated for baseline levels of platform preference, demonstrated strong effects of both forward and backward conditioning. The experiments provide evidence for an aversive sign-tracking system in which animals' tendencies to withdraw from or approach and contact a platform CS are determined by the Pavlovian contingencies which render it a reliable signal for the occurrence or nonoccurrence of shock.     

Factors affecting the measurement of classically conditioned fear in rats following exposure to escapable versus inescapable signaled shock.

Three experiments are reported in which rats first received 50 escapable or inescapable signaled-shock trials. Experiment 1 (n = 22) employed an acquired-drive paradigm and found inescapable shock subjects learned a hurdle-jump response to escape the signal less rapidly than did escapable-shock subjects. Experiment 2 (n = 24) employed a conditioned emotional response paradigm and found inescapable-shock subjects suppressed more when the signal was introduced in the appetitive bar-pressing task. Both experiments measured spontaneous activity immediately following conditioning and found no group differences. Experiment 3 (n = 39) employed the same activity task and found no difference between escapable- and inescapable-shock groups when the signal was introduced into the activity task. Both groups displayed less activity than a nonshock control group during the signal. The results suggest that lack of control over the shock in the conditioning phase did not result in an increase of conditioned fear. The results are discussed in terms of a learned active-inactive predisposition to respond.     

Exposure to inescapable shock produces both activity and associative deficits in the rat

Interference with shuttle-box escape learning following exposure to inescapable shock is often difficult to obtain in rats. The first experiment investigated the role of shock intensity during escape training in the apparent fragility of the effect. Experiment 1A demonstrated that the magnitude of the interference effect was systematically related to shock intensity during shuttle-box testing. At .6 mA, a robust effect was obtained, whereas at .8 mA and 1.0, little or no deficit in the escape performance of inescapably shocked rats was observed. Experiment 1B demonstrated that the deficit observed in Experiment 1A depended upon whether or not rats could control shock offset. Experiment 2 suggested that preshock may suppress activity and that higher shock levels may overcome this deficit. Experiment 3 tested this as the sole cause of the escape deficit by requiring an escape response which exceeded the level of activity readily elicited by a 1.0-mA shock in both restrained and preshocked rats. In such a task, preshocked rats performed more poorly than did restrained controls. These results are consistent with the possibility that inescapable shock may, in addition to reducing activity, produce an associative deficit. Experiment 4 more clearly demonstrated that inescapable shock produces deficits in performance which cannot be expleined by activity deficits and which appear to be associative in nature. It was shown that inescapable shock interfered with the acquisition of signaled punishment suppression but not CER suppression. The theoretical implications of these data for explanations of the manner in which prior exposure to inescapable shock interferes with escape learning were discussed.     

Prior exposure to inescapable electric shock in rats affects extinction behavior after the successful acquisition of an escape response

In Expt 1, rats exposed to 64 inescapable electric shocks in a restrainer or merely restrained were later given either 0, 5, 15 or 30 escape/avoidance training trials with a two-way shuttlebox procedure that does not lead to interference with escape acquisition due to prior exposure to inescapable shock. After escape training all rats were given an escape/avoidance extinction procedure in which shock was inescapable. The rats which had received prior exposure to inescapable shock responded less often and with longer latencies in extinction than did the restrained rats. Experiment 2 demonstrated that this effect is caused by the inescapability of the initial shock treatment. These results were explained in terms of (a) associative interference which minimized the effect of shuttlebox escape training for the preshocked subjects, and (b) a stronger tendency to recognize the presence of an inescapable shock situation during extinction for the preshocked subjects. The relationship between these results and previous work demonstrating that exposure to the escape contingency mitigates the effects of inescapable shock exposure was also discussed.     

Learned helplessness in the rat: time course, immunization, and reversibility.

Rats, like dogs, fail to escape following exposure to inescapable shock. This failure to escape does not dissipate in time; rats fail to escape 5 min, 1 hr., 4 hr., 24 hr., and 1 wk. after receiving inescapable shock. Rats that first learned to jump up to escape were not retarded later at bar pressing to escape following inescapable shock. Failure to escape can be broken up by forcibly exposing the rat to an escape contingency. Therefore, the effects of inescapable shock in the rat parallel learned helplessness effects in the dog.     

Choosing between predictable shock schedules: Long- versus short-duration signals

Two experiments assessed the relative aversiveness of different duration preshock signals (5 and 20 seconds) and different duration stimuli identifying shock-free periods. In the first experiment, the responding of 15 of 18 rats was maintained when it produced changes from a predictable-shock condition with a 5-second preshock signal to an identical schedule with a 20-second preshock signal; responding was not maintained when it produced the opposite changes. These results occurred with intershock intervals of both 120 seconds and 240 seconds. The second experiment assessed whether changing to the 20-second schedule was maintained by properties of the preshock signals identifying the shock periods or by properties of the stimuli identifying the shock-free periods. Four subjects were given training with the two signaled schedules in an operant chamber and then later given off-baseline preference tests in a shuttlebox. When given a choice between preshock signals, subjects chose the 5-second signals over the 20-second signals. However, when given a choice between stimuli identifying shock-free periods, subjects chose the stimulus identifying the shorter shock-free periods (i.e., the one previously correlated with the 20-second signals). These findings are discussed within the Rescorla and Wagner model of stimulus compounds and within the context of safety as a contrast phenomenon.     

Effects of task-irrelevant cues and reinforcement delay on choice-escape learning following inescapable shock: evidence for a deficit in selective attention

Prior exposure to inescapable shock has been reported to interfere with choice-escape learning, but several investigators have failed to obtain this effect. A series of five experiments examined the conditions under which choice-escape learning in an automated Y-maze is impaired by pretreatment with inescapable shock. Inescapably shocked rats made more errors and responded more slowly than did controls only when shock termination was delayed and task-irrelevant cues were present during choice-escape training. These findings are discussed in terms of information processing and neurochemical consequences of exposure to inescapable shock.     

Role of fear in mediating shuttle escape learning deficit produced by inescapable shock

The relation between the shuttlebox escape deficit produced by prior inescapable shock (IS) and fear during shuttlebox testing as assessed by freezing was investigated in rats. IS rats learned to escape poorly and were more fearful than either escapably shocked subjects or controls, both before and after receiving shock in the shuttlebox. However, fear and poor escape performance did not covary with the manipulation of variables designed to modulate the amount of fear and the occurrence of the escape deficit. A 72-hr interval between IS and testing eliminated the escape deficit but did not reduce preshock freezing. Diazepam before testing reduced both preshock and postshock fear in the shuttlebox but had no effect on the escape deficit. Naltrexone had no effect on fear but eliminated the escape deficit. This independence of outcomes suggests that the shuttlebox escape deficit is not caused by high levels of fear in IS subjects.     

Learned helplessness in the rat.

Four experiments attempted to produce behavior in the rat parallel to the behavior characteristic of learned helplessness in the dog. When rats received escapable, inescapable, or no shock and were later tested in jump-up escape, both inescapable and no-shock controls failed to escape. When bar pressing, rather than jumping up, was used as the tested escape response, fixed ratio (FR) 3 was interfered with by inescapable shock, but not lesser ratios. With FR-3, the no-shock control escaped well. Interference with escape was shown to be a function of the inescapability of shock and not shock per se: Rats that were "put through" and learned a prior jump-up escape did not become passive, but their yoked, inescapable partners did. Rats, as well as dogs, fail to escape shock as a function of prior inescapability, exhibiting learned helplessness.     

Stressor Controllability and Learned Helplessness Research in the United States: Sensitization and Fatigue Processes

Recent work in the learned helplessness paradigm suggests that neuronal sensitization and fatigue processes are critical to producing the behavioral impairment that follows prolonged exposure to an unsignaled inescapable stressor such as a series of electric tail shocks. Here we discuss how an interaction between serotonin (5-HT) and corticosterone (CORT) sensitizes GABA neurons early in the pretreatment session with inescapable shock. We propose that this process eventually depletes GABA, thus removing an important form of inhibition on excitatory glutamate transmission in the amygdala, hippocampus, and frontal cortex. When rats are re-exposed to shock during shuttle-escape testing 24 hrs later, the loss of inhibition (as well as other excitatory effects) results in unregulated excitation of glutamate neurons. This state of neuronal over-excitation rapidly compromises metabolic homeostasis. Metabolic fatigue results in compensatory inhibition by the nucleoside adenosine, which regulates neuronal excitation with respect to energy availability. The exceptionally potent form of inhibition associated with adenosine receptor activation yields important neuroprotective benefits under conditions of metabolic failure, but also precludes the processing of information in fatigued neurons. The substrates of adaptive behavior are removed; performance deficits ensue.